^    (JWch^A 


LIBEAEY 

or  THE 

J1  h  e  o  1  o  g  i  e  a  1   Seminary, 

PRINCETON,    N.  J. 

Case, 

Shelf,  

Boole, 

- 

AN  INQUIRY 


INTO 


THE  ACCORDANCY  OF  WAR 

WITH  THE 

PRINCIPLES  OF  CHRISTIANITY; 


AN  EXAMINATION  OF  THE  PHILOSOPHICAL  REASONING  BY 
WHICH  IT  IS  DEFENDED  J 


OBSERVATIONS  ON  THE  CAUSES  OF  WAR  AND  SOME  OF  ITS 
EFFECTS;    / 

BY  JONATHAN  DYMCND. 


DEDICATION    TO  SUNDAY-SCHOOL  TEACHERS  AND  SCHOLARS, 

AXI>  XOTES, 

BY  THOMAS  SMITH  GRIMKE, 

Of  Charleston,  South  Carolina. 

UtOQttfitv  tottft  &n  ®pp$vftiv, 

CONTAINING  EXTRACTS  FROM   SEVRAE  OF  HIS  WRITINGS,  VINDICAT- 
ING OR  IIUSTRATING  THE  PRINCIPLES  OF  PEACE. 

—•>»»©  @©4*»«— 

PHILADELPHIA: 

PRINTED  BY  I.  ASHMEAD  &  CO. 
1834. 


Entered  according  to  the  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1834,  by 
Thomas  S.  Grimke,  in  the  Clerk's  Office  of  the  District  Court 
of  the  Eastern  District  of  Pennsylvania. 


ADVERTISEMENT. 


It  seems  necesary  in  presenting  this  work  to  the  Public, 
to  state  under  what  disadvantages  it  has  been  publishd,  in 
order  that  the  eirors,  if  there  be  any,  may  be  chargd  to  us, 
who  have  had  the  supervision  of  it,  and  not  to  the  departed 
Editor.  In  the  9th  month,  when  paying  a  short  visit  to  this 
city,  his  time  was  so  closely  occupy'd,  as  to  preclude  the 
possibility  of  his  arranging^nd  correcting  the  original  parts  of 
this  volume,  so  that  this  duty  was  confided  to  us ;  and  we 
had  fondly  hop'd  that  on  his  return  from  Ohio,  he  would 
again  hav  visited  Philadelphia,  which  would  hav  afforded 
him  an  oportunity  of  juding  for  himself,  whether  all  things 
had  been  executed  acording  to  his  wishes.  Soon  after  he 
left  us,  the  book  was  put  to  press,  so  that  the  printing  was 
completed  before  the  intelligence  of  his  death  ariv'd,  except 
the  first  sheet,  which  was  detaind  with  the  expectation  of  his 
adding  the  extract  of  a  letter,  which  is  aluded  to  in  the  De- 
dication, but  which  has  not  been  found  among  the  papers. 

After  paying  a  visit  of  love  and  duty  to  a  brother  from 
whom  he  had  been  separated  for  sixteen  years,  and  deliver- 
ing an  Oration  at  Oxford,  a  Lecture  at  Cincinnati,  and  some 
Addresses  on  the  benevolent  enterprizes  of  the  day,  he  was 
suddenly  calld  from  his  "  labor  of  love  and  works  of  faith," 
to  be  an  inhabitant  of  that  city,  whose  walls  ar  salvation  and 
whose  gates  ar  prais.  On  his  way  to  Columbus  to  meet 
his  brother  Judge  Grimke,  he  was  taken  ill  of  cholera,  and 


IV  ADVERTISEMENT. 

after  an  illness  of  twelv  hours,  his  career  of  usefulness 
was  terminated  by  the  hand  of  Death.  Whilst  we  deeply 
deplore  the  loss  of  one  of  the  best  of  brothers,  our  hearts  ar 
often  filld  with  thanksgiving  and  prais,  to  "  the  God  of  all 
consolation,"  for  the  sweet  asurance  we  confidently  feel  that 
he  is  now  one  among  that  multitude  who  "  have  washed 
their  robes  and  made  them  white  in  the  blood  of  the  Lamb." 
Yes !  our  prostrate  souls  ar  bowd  in  gratitude  for  the  gift  of 
so  precious  a  brother,  father  and  friend ;  and  altho'  that  gift 
has  been  recall'd,  yet  do  we  reverently  adopt  the  language 
of  Job,  "  The  Lord  gave  and  the  Lord  hath  taken  away, 
blessed  be  the  name  of  the  Lord,"  Blessed  be  his  holy 
name,  ours  is  the  loss,  his  the  eternal  gain — we  weep  not 
for  him,  but  for  ourselves,  for  his  bereavd  widow,  for  his 
aged  mother,  and  for  his  fatherless  children. 

That  the  blessing  of  Almighty  God  may  rest  upon  this 
his  last  effort  in  the  Christian  Cau^e  of  Peace,  is  the  fervent 
prayer  of 

HIS  AFFLICTED  SISTERS. 
Philadelphia,  10th  Mo.  26th,  1834, 


CONTENTS. 


Page 

To  the  Reader, 3 

Dedication,      -        -         -         -        ...         _        _  5 

Preface, -        -        -        -11 

I.— CAUSES  OF  WAR. 

Original  Causes — Present  Multiplicity,     -  13 

Want  of  Inquiry — This  want  not  manifested  on  parallel 

subjects,  -- 14 

National  Irratibility, 17 

«  Balance  of  Power," 19 

Pecuniary  Interest — Employment  for  the  higher  ranks  of 

Society,         ----:-__  20 

Ambition — Private  purposes  of  state  policy,  22 

Military  Glory,        ........  24 

Foundation  of  military  glory — Skill — Bravery — Pa- 
triotism— Patriotism  not  a  motive  to  the  soldier, 

Boohs — Historians — Poets, 31 

Writers  who  promote  war  sometimes  assert  its  un- 
lawfulness 

II.— AN  INQUIRY,  Sec. 

Palpable  ferocity  of  war.  ......  2>7 

Reasonableness  of  the  Inquiry, 38 

Revealed  will  of  God  the  sole  standard  of  decision,  -  39 

Declarations  of  great  men  that  Christianity  prohibits  war,  40 

Christianity, 42 

# 


VI  CONTENTS. 

General  character  of  Christianity,    .........  43 

Precepts  and  declarations  of  Jesus  Christ,  ...       44 

Argument  that  the  precepts  are  figurative  only ,    -  46 

Precepts  and  declarations  of  the  Apostles,  50 

Objections  to  the  advocate  of  peace  from  passages  of  the 

Christian  Scriptures, 52 

Prophecies  of  the  Old  Testament  respecting-  an  era  of  peace,       57 
Early    Christians — Their     belief— Their    practice — Early- 
Christian  writers, 59 

Mosaic  Institutions, 65 

Example  of  men  of  piety, 67 

Objections  to  the  advocate  of  peace  from  the  distinction  be- 
tween the  duties  of  private  and  public  life,       -         -  68 
Mode  of  proving-  the  rectitude  of  this  distinction 
from  the  absence  of  a  common  arbitrator  amongst 
nations,      -         -        -         -         -                  -         -69 

Mode  of  proving-  it  on  the  principles  of  expediency,        70 
Examination  of  the  principles  of  expediency  as  ap- 
plied to  war of  the  mode  of  its  application,       73 

Universality  of  Christian  oblig-ation,     -         -         -         -         -75 

Dr.  Paley's  "Moral  and  Political  Philosophy" — Chapter 
"on  War."     Mode  of  discussing-  the  question  of  its 
lawfulness,  -         -         -        -         -         -        -         -         -      ib. 

This  mode  inconsistent  with  the  professed  principles 
of  the  Moral  Philosophy — with  the  usual  practice 

of  the  author, 77 

Inapplicability  of  the  principles  proposed    by  the 

Moral  Philosophy  to  the  purposes  of  life,      -         -       78 

Dr.  Paley's  "Evidences  of  Christianity,"        ...  79 

Inconsistency  of  its  statements,  with  the  principles  of 

the  « Moral  Philosophy,"      -         -         -         -         -      80 

Argument  in  favour  of  war  from  the  excess  of  male  births,         82 

From  the  lawfulness  of  coercion  on  the  part  of  the 

civil  magistrate,    --- 83 

Rig-ht  of  self  defence — Mode  of  maintaining-  the  right  from 

the  instincts  of  nature, 86 

Attack  of  an  assassin — Principles  on  which  killing-  an 
assassin  is  defended,      -         -         -         -         -         -       87 

Consequences  of  these  principles,  -  90 


CONTENTS.  VII 

Unconditional  reliance  upon  Providence  on  the  subject  of 

defence,        -         -         - 93 

Safety  of  this  reliance — Evidence  by  experience  in 
private  life — by  national  experience,  -         -     93  98 

General  observations,  -.--...99 

III.— EFFECTS  OF  WAR. 

Social  consequences,        -        -        --        -        .        .         106 
Political  consequences,  -.-....  107 

Opinions  of  Dr.  Johnson, ib. 

Moral  consequences, 109 

TJPOK  THE  MILITARY  CHARACTER. 

Familiarity  with  human  destruction — with  plunder  109 

Incapacity  for  regular  pursuits — "  half  pay,"       -  111 
Implicit  submission  to  superiors. 

Its  effect  on  the  indepencence  of  the  mind,    -  -  113 

— On  the  moral  character,          -         -         -         -  114 

Resignation  of  moral  agency,           -         -         -  -  115 

Military  power  despotic, 116 

UPO^  THE  COMMUSTITT. 

Peculiar  contagiousness  of  military  depravity,    -         -119 
Animosity  of  party — spirit  of  resentment,      -         -         121 

Privateering — Its  peculiar  atrocity, 122 

Mercenaries — Loan  of  armies, 123 

Prayers  for  the  success  of  war, 124 

The  duty  of  a  subject  who  believes  that  all  war  is  incom- 
patible with  Christianity,           -  126 
Conclusion, 127 

THOMAS   S.   GRIMKE'S 

Notes  to  Dymond  on  War,       -        -         -         -        -         -         131 

Address  on  the  Truth,  Dignity,  Power  and  Beauty  of  the 

Principles  of  Peace, 177 

Extracts  from  different  Writings  of  Thomas  S.  Grimke, 
enforcing,  vindicating,  and  ilustrating  the  Principles 
of  Peace,  --------         243 

Extract  from  the  Address  on  the  Character  and  Objects  of 

Science, 245 


Vlll  CONTENTS. 

Extract  From  the  Speech  in  the  Senate  of  South  Carolina, 

on  the  Tariff  and  State  Sovreignty,          -         -         248 
From  the  Address  at  the  Dedication  of  the  Deposi- 
tory for  Bibles,  &c, 251 

From  an  Address  before  the  Richland  School,     -         254 
From  the  Oration  before  the  Phi  Beta  Kappa  So- 
ciety of  Yale  College,  256 

From  the  Sunday  School  Jubilee  Address,  -         258 

From  the  Letter  to  J.  C.  Calhoun,  R.  Y.  Hayne,  &c.     263 
From  a  Letter  to  the  People  of  South  Carolina,  268 

From  a  Letter  on  Peace, 274 

Petition  of  Thomas  S.  Grimke  to  the  Legislature  of  South 

Carolina,  -- 280 

Extract  from  an  Oration  before  the  Washington  Society,         283 
From  an  Address  deliverd  before  the  Charleston 

Temperance  Society, 293 

From  an  Address  on  the  Power  and  Valu  of  the 
Sundav-school  Svstem, 295 


TO  THE  READER, 


Having  been  long  satisfy'd  that  the  Orthography  of  the 
English  Language  not  only  admitted  but  requir'd  great 
changes  for  the  better,  I  hav  for  sevral  years  been 
making  alterations  in  the  different  pamphlets,  which  I  hav 
publishd  from  time  to  time.  Thus  far  they  hav  consisted 
chiefly,  1.  in  the  omission  of  the  silent  e  in  such  classes  of 
words,  as  disciplin,  respit,  believ,  abhord,  publishd,  re- 
maind — evry,  sevral,  volly :  2.  in  the  suppression  of  the  e, 
and  the  substitution  of  a  comma  for  the  silent  e,  after  the 
manner  of  the  poets,  in  words  where  the  simple  omission  of 
the  e  would  change  the  vowel  sound  from  long  to  short,  as 
in  requir'd,  deriv'd,  refin'd.  3.  In  the  retention  of  the  y  at 
the  end  of  nouns  ending  in  y  and  the  addition  of  s  to  make 
the  plural,  instead  of  changing  y  into  ie,  and  then  adding 
the  5,  as  in  varietys,  beautys,  pluralitys.  4.  In  the  reten- 
tion of  the  y  in  verbs,  ending  in  that  letter,  and  the  addi- 
tion of  s  or  d,  instead  of  changing  the  y  into  ie,  and  then 
adding  s,  as  in  burys,  varys,  varyd.  5.  In  retaining  the  y 
in  similar  words,  where  the  y  is  long,  (and  the  simple  addi- 
tion of  s  or  d  would  make  the  y  short)  and  adding  the 
comma  after  the  manner  of  the  poets,  as  in  multiply'd,  mul- 
tiply's,  diversify'd,  diversify's.  6.  In  the  transposition  of  the 
e  in  such  words  as  scepter,  battel,  center.  7.  In  the  sup- 
pression of  one  of  two  letters  (being  the  same)  where  the 


accent  is  not  on  them :  as  in  necesary,  excelent,  ilustrious, 
recomend,  efectual,  iresistible,  worshipers.  8.  In  the  uni- 
form rejection  of  the  u  in  all  such  words,  as  favor,  honor, 
savior,  neighbor,  savor.  9»  In  the  retention  of  y  in  adjec- 
tivs  ending  in  y,  and  the  addition  of  er  and  est  to  form  the 
comparativ,  so  as  not  to  change  y  into  i,  as  easyer,  pretty - 
est,  holyest. 

To  those  who  know  me,  I  need  hardly  say  that  the  re- 
solv  to  pursu  such  a  cours  has  been  founded  on  a  princi- 
ple of  duty.  I  hav  been,  acordingly,  willing  to  encounter 
ridicule,  contempt,  abuse — acting  not  at  all  from  any  principle 
of  caprice,  or  singularity,  or  ambition.  I  hav  set  the  exam- 
ple, because  it  was  the  best  mode  in  which  the  subject  could 
be  at  first  presented.  But  I  hope  it  will  not  be  long  before 
the  propriety  and  advantage  of  these  and  various  other 
changes  will  become  more  and  more  obvious.  My  great 
object  is  to  simplify  eventualy  the  spelling  of  our  language, 
so  that  evry  distinct  sound,  whether  vowel  or  consonant, 
shall  hav  its  separate,  exclusiv  representativ.  It  must  be 
manifest,  that  a  most  important  object  will  be  gaind  by  this 
plan ;  for  then  all  the  time  now  spent  in  teaching  children 
to  spell  will  be  sav'd,  and  they  will  learn  it,  by  simply 
learning  the  specific  sound  of  each  symbol  for  a  vowel,  diph- 
thong, or  consonant.  I  hope  it  will  not  be  long  before  I 
shall  be  able  to  lay  my  views  at  large  before  the  public. 

THOMAS  S.  GRIMKE. 


DEDICATION. 


* 


TO  THE  TEACHERS  AND  SCHOLARS*  OF  SUNDAY 
SCHOOLS. 

My  Chbistian  Friends, 

In  presenting  you  with  an  American  edition  of  Dymond 
on  War,  I  feel  assur'd  that  I  am  rendering  an  important 
service  to  the  cause  of  religion,  of  our  country,  and  of  man- 
kind. Whatever  may  enlighten  and  strengthen  your  sens 
of  duty,  correct  and  purify  your  afections,  enlarge  and  ele- 
vate your  standard  of  usefulnes,  must  be  valuable  to  you. 
Those  who  look  at  the  existing  state  of  things,  and  contem- 
plate with  Christian  seriousnes  the  prospect  before  them, 
must  be  sensible  that  the  character,  progress,  and  influence 
of  the  church  in  future  years,  depend  to  an  incalculable 
extent  upon  you.  In  your  hands  ar,  in  my  opinion,  the 
destiny,  not  only  of  the  Christian  church,  but  of  the  institu- 
tions of  your  country.  What  that  country  shall  be,  on  the 
first  centennial  aniversary  of  American  independence,  de- 
pends upon  you,  as  I  firmly  believ,  in  a  greater  degree, 
than  upon  the  combin'd  efforts  of  all  other  persons  in  the 
United  States.     If  you  should  be  faithful  to  the  principles 

*  Those  in  the  higher  classes,  and  all  after  they  hav  com- 
pleted the  cours,  ar  here  intended. 


Xll 

taught  and  the  afections  cultivated  in  the  Sunday-school, 
(and  to  the  reproach  of  Christians,  taught  and  cultivated 
only  there,)  your  country  will  be,  on  the  4th  of  July,  1876, 
a  more  lovely  and  glorious  object  than  the  Christian  world 
has  ever  beheld.  Believing,  as  I  do,  that  the  Sunday-school 
system  is  one  of  the  most  important  branches  of  the  moral 
government  of  God,  for  the  regeneration  and  perfection  of 
society,  through  all  its  institutions,  I  regard  you  as  emi- 
nently privileged  and  blessd  in  the  enjoyment  of  this  divine 
confidence.  Let  me  exhort  and  implore  you  to  be  faithful 
to  this  high  trust.  Realize  the  dignity  and  sanctity  of  your 
station  ;  the  awful  and  solemn  character  of  the  power  with 
which  you  ar  invested :  and  the  truly  Christian  enduring 
influence,  which  you  may  exercise  if  you  choose ;  and  must 
exercise  if  you  ar  faithful.  Yours  is  the  only  system  of 
education,  whose  sole  object  is  to  fit  the  young  to  fee,  what 
all  systems  of  education,  in  Christian  lands,  should  labor  to 
make  them,  the  children  of  God,  and  the  brethren  of  all 
mankind.  Thus,  not  only  religion  and  your  country  hav 
a  deep  interest  in  you,  but  the  whole  world  looks  to  you,  as 
engaged  in  a  work  of  infinit  value  to  the  human  race.  In 
truth,  you  cannot  estimate  too  highly  the  magnitude  of  your 
obligations  to  the  whole  family  of  Adam;  and  the  extent  of  the 
influence  which  you  ar  preparing  to  exert  at  a  future  day, 
thro'out  the  habitable  globe.  Would  that  I  could  speak 
with  the  tongue  of  an  angel  and  the  authority  of  a  prophet, 
to  constrain  you  to  treasure  up  in  your  hearts  these  solemn 
and  momentous  truths.  Thousands  of  you,  I  know  will  do 
it :  and  may  God  grant,  that,  in  the  next  generation,  tens  of 
thousands  may  do  the  like,  thro'  all  our  land. 

The  great  object  of  republishing  Dymond  on  War,  is  to 
lead  you  to  think  on  a  subject,  upon  which  few  hav  ever 
thought,  the  Accordancy  of  War  with  the  Principles  of 
Christianity.  The  Sunday-school  is  the  only  seminary  (and 
I  speak  it  to  the  dishonor  of  Christians)  in  which  the  young 


XU1 

ar  taught,  that  humility,  forbearance,  fbrgivnes,  and  love, 
ar  indispensable  to  the  Christian  character.  Now,  these 
ar  Christian  virtues :  the  opposit  of  these  ar  Pagan  vir~ 
tues.  War  is  utterly  ireconcilabh  with  the  former:  it 
cannot  subsist  without  the  latter.  Yet  the  practical  ten- 
dency of  the  poetical  and  historical  studys  pursu'd  in  all 
other  seminarys  but  the  Sunday-school,  is  to  recomend  and 
extol  the  Pagan,  and  to  discountenance  and  condemn  the 
Christian  virtues.  Suffer  me  to  say  to  you,  that  the  cor- 
ection  of  this  mighty  evil  depends  upon  you  more  than 
upon  all  the  other  classes  of  society  put  together.  To 
Christianize  education  in  all  its  departments,  to  make  the 
instruction  of  Christian  children,  from  beginning  to  end,  as  it 
ought  to  be,  consistent  with  the  belief  and  practice  of  humility, 
forbearance,  forgivnes,  love,  is  one  of  your  chief  dutys,  as 
it  will  be  one  of  your  noblest  triumphs.  This  duty,  this 
triumph  is  reservM  for  you.  Go  on,  then,  in  the  fear  of 
God,  in  good  will  towards  man,  and  the  blessing  of  Heaven 
will  be  assuredly  yours.  Should  this  volume  succeed  in 
convincing  you  of  the  unchristian  character  of  War  and  the 
Warrior,  let  me  then  urge  upon  you  the  duty  of  making  it 
the  subject  of  conversation  whenever  you  shall  find  a  fa- 
vorable  opportunity.  Thus  will  you  continualy  exercise  a 
wholesome  influence  on  all  around  you,  as  long  as  you 
liv,  and  entitle  yourselvs  to  the  chief  blessing  in  the  sermon 
on  the  Mount,  "  Blessed  ar  the  peace-makers,  for  they  shall 
be  called  the  children  of  God." 

In  the  year  1832,  a  distinguishd  militia  officer  in  South 
Carolina,  requested  a  copy  of  my  Address  on  Peace,  deliverd 
in  May,  1832,  before  the  Connecticut  Peace  Society.  I  sent 
it  to  him  with  some  such  remarks  as  these.  "  You  may 
smile  at  the  sentiments  containd  in  my  address,  but  if  we 
liv  twenty  years  longer,  when  a  million  of  Sunday-school 
children  shall  hav  been  brought  to  bear  on  public  senti- 
ment and  on  all  the  institutions  of  society,  you  will  find, 

A 


XIV 

where  a  dozen  agree  with  me  now,  thousands  will  agree  with 
me  then"  And  who  can  doubt  it,  if  Sunday-school  teachers 
and  scholars  ar  faithful  and  zealous  in  the  cause  of  Chris- 
tian humility,  forbearance,  forgivnes,  love  ?  There  ar  now, 
at  least,  one  hundred  thousand  instructors,  and  a  million  of 
pupils  in  the  Sunday-schools  of  the  United  States.  They 
posess  the  power,  and  I  trust  that  God  will  put  it  into  their 
hearts  to  exercise  the  influence,  which  is  able  to  make  so 
mighty  and  glorious  a  change.  Let  Sunday-school  teachers 
make  it  an  especial  business  to  teach,  not  only  the  peculiar 
doctrins,  but  the  peculiar  virtues  of  the  Gospel.  Let 
Sunday-school  pupils,  when  they  come  to  be  men  and  wo- 
men, neither  be  asham'd  to  avow,  nor  afraid  to  practis 
those  peculiar  virtues.  Let  it  be  the  business  and  glory 
of  instructors  and  scholars  thus  to  act :  and  you  will  do  more 
in  a  single  generation  to  make  the  standard  of  private  and 
public  sentiment,  truly  Christian,  than  all  the  Colleges  and 
secular  schools  of  the  Union  could  acomplish  in  ten  genera- 
tions. For  myself,  I  do  not  believ  they  ever  could  acom- 
plish it,  with  such  systems  of  education  as  they  hav  hith- 
erto had.  All  the  experience  of  the  past  testify's  against 
them:  and  no  one  can  doubt  it,  who  is  aware,  that  it  is 
no  part  of  their  scheme  to  teach  the  peculiar  virtues  of 
the  Gospel.  Whether  the  absence  of  this  branch  of  in- 
struction in  those  seminarys  be  a  defect  or  an  advantage, 
this  is  neither  the  time  nor  the  place  to  examin.  I  refer  to 
it  as  a  fact.  Hence,  I  argu  the  absolute  necesity  of  some 
other  system  to  supply  what  is  indispensable  in  the  educa- 
tion of  Christian  children.  That  other  system  is  the  Sunday- 
school.  Thus,  my  Christian  friends,  you  see  what  dutys 
ar  alotted  ;  what  power  is  entrusted  to  you ;  what  a  vast 
and  all-important  revolution  you  ar  fitted,  and  as  I  trust, 
destind  to  acomplish. 

Let  me  conclude,  by  recomending  to  you  the  cause  of 
Peace,  in  the  various  forms,  in  which  it  is  now  adressing 


XV 

itself  to  the  public  sentiment  of  our  belovd  country,  and 
striving  to  reform  it.  Let  me  recomend  to  you  to  become 
members  of  Peace  Societys,  wherever  they  ar  formd ;  to 
attend  their  aniversarys,  to  read  their  publications,  and  espe- 
cialy  the  periodical  of  the  American  Peace  Society:*  to 
peruse  a  "  Solemn  Review  of  the  Custom  of  War  ;"f  Mr. 
Wm.  Ladd's  two  little  volumes,  calld  Philanthropos,  first 
and  second  series  4  and,  lastly,  Hancock  on  Peace  ;§  which 
is  the  most  convincing  testimony  in  favor  of  the  beauty, 
valu,  and  authority  of  Peace  principles  that  is  to  be  found 
any  where.  Of  this  book,  a  gentleman  of  the  first  respec- 
tability in  New  York,  writes  to  me  thus,  under  date  of  17th 
August,  1833 :  "  An  Irish  gentleman,  with  me  on  a  visit, 
who  was  well  conversant  with  the  state  of  Ireland  during  the 
rebellion,  tells  me  he  has  no  doubt  of  the  truth  of  every  fact 
related  by  Hancock." 

I  had  thought  of  writing  a  preface  to  Dymond's  work,  but 
this  dedication  and  the  extract  of  a  letter  ||  to  a  friend  which 
follows  it,  will  be  accepted,  I  trust,  instead  of  an  introduc- 
tion. 

I  hav  thus  set  before  you  my  objects  and  wishes :  your 
dutys  and  prospects.  I  ask  nothing  from  gratitude  on  my 
own  account ;  but  I  ask  evry  thing  of  your  love,  fidelity  and 
zeal  in  the  cause  of  God,  of  your  country,  and  of  mankind. 

Your  sincere  friend,  in  the  Christian  bonds  of  love  and 
duty. 

THOMAS  S.  GRIMKE. 


*  The  Calumet,  conducted  by  Richard  M.  Chipman,  and  pub- 
lished evry  other  month  at  New  York. 

f  By  the  Rev.  Noah  Worcester,  of  Brig-hton,  Massachusetts, 
the  Patriarch  of  the  Peace  Cause. 

*  Consisting  of  a  series  of  numbers  first  publishd  in  the  Chris- 
tian Mirror,  a  religious  newspaper  of  Portland,  Maine, 

§  Second  American  edition,  printed  at  Philadelphia,  in  1832, 
by  Thomas  Kite  8c  Co.  in  18mo. 

g  This  Extract  could  not  be  found  among-  the  papers  which 
were  left  in  Philadelphia,  and  as  the  Editor  never  returnd,  the 
deficiency  cannot  now  be  supply 'd. 


AN  INQUIRY 


THE  ACCORDANCY  OF  WAR 


THE  PRINCIPLES   OF  CHRISTIANITY; 


AN  EXAMINATION 


OT  THE  PHILOSOPHICAL  REASOXI2CG  BY  WHICH  IT  IS  DETEXDID 


OBSERVATIONS  ON  THE  CAUSES  OF  WAR 


AND  SOME  OF  ITS  EFFECTS- 


BY   JONATHAN  DYMOND. 


PREFACE. 


The  object  of  the  following  pages,  is  to  give  a  view  of 
the  principal  arguments  which  maintain  the  indefensibility 
and  impolicy  of  war,  and  to  examine  the  reasoning  which  is 
advanced  in  its  favour. 

The  author  has  not  found,  either  in  those  works  which 
treat  exclusively  of  war,  or  in  those  which  refer  to  it  as  part 
of  a  general  system,  any  examination  of  the  question  that 
embraced  it  in  all  its  bearings.  In  these  pages,  therefore, 
he  has  attempted,  not  only  to  inquire  into  its  accordancy 
with  Christian  principles,  and  to  enforce  the  obligation  of 
these  principles,  but  to  discuss  those  objections  to  the  advo- 
cate of  peace  which  are  advanced  by  philosophy,  and  to 
examine  into  the  authority  of  those  which  are  enforced  by 
the  power  of  habit,  and  by  popular  opinion* 

Perhaps  no  other  apology  is  necessary  for  the  intrusion 
of  this  essay  upon  the  public,  than  that  its  subject  is,  in  a 
very  high  degree,  important.  Upon  such  a  subject  as  the 
slaughter  of  mankind,  if  there  be  a  doubt,  however  indeter- 
minate, whether  Christianity  does  not  prohibit  it — if  there 
be  a  possibility,  however  remote,  that  the  happiness  and 
security  of  a  nation  can  be  maintained  without  it,  an  exami- 
nation of  such  possibility  or  doubt,  may  reasonably  obtain 
our  attention. — The  advocate  of  peace  is,  however,  not 
obliged  to  avail  himself  of  such  considerations  :  at  least,  if 
the  author  had  not  believed  that  much  more  than  doubt  and 
possibility  can  be  advanced  in  support  of  his  opinions,  this 
inquiry  would  not  have  been  offered  to  the  public. 

He  is  far  from  amusing  himself  with  the  expectation  of  a 
general  assent  to  the  truth  of  his  conclusions.  Some  will 
probably  dispute  the  rectitude  of  the  principles  of  decision, 
and  some  will  dissent  from  the  legitimacy  of  their  application. 
Nevertheless,  he  believes  that  the  number  of  those  whose 
opinions  will  accord  with  his  own,  is  increasing,  and  will 
yet  much  more  increase ;  and  this  belief  is  sufficiently  con- 
fident, to  induce  him  to  publish  an  essay  which  will  proba- 
bly be  the  subject  of  contempt  to  some  men,  and  of  ridicule 
to  others. — But  ridicule  and  contempt  are  not  potent  rea- 
soners. 


XX 

"  Christianity  can  only  operate  as  an  alterative.  By  the 
mild  diffusion  of  its  light  and  influence,  the  minds  of  men 
are  insensibly  prepared  to  perceive  and  correct  the  enormi- 
ties, which  folly,  or  wickedness,  or  accident  have  intro- 
duced into  their  public  establishments."*  It  is  in  the  hope 
of  contributing,  in  a  degree  however  unimportant  or  remote, 
to  the  diffusion  of  this  light  and  influence,  that  the  following 
pages  have  been  written. 

For  the  principles  of  this  little  volume,  or  for  its  conclu- 
sions, no  one  is  responsible  but  the  writer :  they  are  uncon- 
nected with  any  society,  benevolent  or  religious.  He  has 
not  written  it  for  a  present  occasion,  or  with  any  view  to 
the  present  political  state  of  Europe.  A  question  like  this, 
does  not  concern  itself  with  the  quarrels  of  the  day. 

It  will,  perhaps,  be  thought  by  some  readers,  that  there 
is  contained,  in  the  following  pages,  greater  severity  of  ani- 
madversion than  becomes  an  advocate  of  peace.  But,  "  let 
it  be  remembered,  that  to  bestow  good  names  on  bad  things, 
is  to  give  them  a  passport  in  the  world  under  a  delusive  dis- 
guise."! The  writer  believes  that  wars  are  often  supported, 
because  the  system  itself,  and  the  actions  of  its  agents,  are 
veiled  in  glittering  fictions.  He  has,  therefore,  attempted  to 
exhibit  the  nature  of  these  fictions,  and  of  that  which  they 
conceal ;  and  to  state,  freely  and  honestly,  both  what  they 
are  not,  and  what  they  are.  In  this  attempt  it  has  been 
difficult — perhaps  it  has  not  been  possible — to  avoid  some 
appearance  of  severity :  but  he  would  beg  the  reader  always 
to  bear  in  his  recollection,  that  if  he  speaks  with  censure  of 
any  class  of  men,  he  speaks  of  them  only  as  a  class.  He  is 
far  from  giving  to  such  censure  an  individual  application : 
Such  an  application  would  be  an  outrage  of  all  candour  and 
all  justice.  If  again,  he  speaks  of  war  as  criminal,  he  does 
not  attach  guilt,  necessarily,  to  the  profession  of  arms.  He 
can  suppose  that  many  who  engage  in  the  dreadful  work  of 
human  destruction,  may  do  it  without  a  consciousness  of 
impropriety,  or  with  a  belief  of  its  virtue.  But  truth  itself 
is  unalterable :  whatever  be  our  conduct,  and  whatever  our 
opinions,  and  whether  we  perceive  its  principles  or  not, 
those  principles  are  immutable ;  and  the  illustration  of  truth, 
so  far  as  he  has  the  power  of  discovering  it,  is  the  object  of 
the  inquiry  which  he  now  offers  to  the  public. 

*  Paley's  Moral  and  Political  Philosophy, 
j-  Knox's  Essays,  No.  34. 


DYMOND  ON  WAR. 


PART    I. 

OBSERVATIONS   ON   THE   CAUSES   OF   WAR. 


Felix,  qui  potuit  rerum  cognoseere  causas. — Virg. 


In  the  attempt  to  form  an  accurate  estimate  of  the  moral 
character  of  human  actions  and  opinions,  it  is  often  of  im- 
portance to  inquire  how  they  have  been  produced.  There 
is  always  great  reason  to  doubt  the  rectitude  of  that,  of  which 
the  causes  and  motives  are  impure ;  and  if,  therefore,  it 
should  appear  from  the  observations  which  follow,  that 
some  of  the  motives  to  war,  and  of  its  causes,  are  inconsist- 
ent with  reason  or  with  virtue,  I  would  invite  the  reader  to 
pursue  the  inquiry  that  succeeds  them,  with  suspicion,  at 
least,  of  the  rectitude  of  our  ordinary  opinions. 

There  are  some  customs  which  have  obtained  so  generally 
and  so  long,  that  what  was  originally  an  effect  becomes  a 
cause,  and  what  was  a  cause  becomes  an  effect,  until,  by  the 
reciprocal  influence  of  each,  the  custom  is  continued  by  cir- 
cumstances so  multiplied  and  involved,  that  it  is  difficult  to 
detect  them  in  all  their  ramifications,  or  to  determine  those 
to  which  it  is  principally  to  be  referred. 

What  were  once  the  occasions  of  wars  may  be  easily 
supposed. — Robbery,  or  the  repulsion  of  robbers,  was  pro- 
bably the  only  motive  to  hostility,  until  robbery  became  re- 
fined into  ambition,  and  it  was  sufficient  to  produce  a  war 
that  a  chief  was  not  content  with  the  territory  of  his  fathers. 
But  by  the  gradually  increasing  complication  of  society  from 

B 


14 

age  to  age,  and  by  the  multiplication  of  remote  interests  and 
obscure  rights,  the  motives  to  war  have  become  so  numerous 
and  so  technical,  that  ordinary  observation  often  fails  to 
perceive  what  they  are.  They  are  sometimes  known  only 
to  a  cabinet,  which  is  influenced  in  its  decision  by  reason- 
ings, of  which  a  nation  knows  little,  or  by  feelings  of  which 
it  knows  nothing :  so  that  of  those  who  personally  engage  in 
hostilities,  there  is,  perhaps,  not  often  one  in  ten  who  can 
distinctly  tell  why  he  is  fighting. 

This  refinement  in  the  motives  of  war,  is  no  trifling  evi- 
dence that  they  are  insufficient  or  bad.  When  it  is  consi- 
dered how  tremendous  a  battle  is,  how  many  it  hurries  in  a 
moment  from  the  world,  how  much  wretchedness  and  how 
much  guilt  it  produces,  it  would  surely  appear  that  nothing 
but  obvious  necessity  should  induce  us  to  resort  to  it.  But 
when,  instead  of  a  battle,  we  have  a  war  with  many  battles, 
and  of  course  with  multiplied  suffering  and  accumulated 
guilt,  the  motives  to  so  dreadful  a  measure  ought  to  be  such 
as  to  force  themselves  upon  involuntary  observation,  and  to 
be  written,  as  it  were,  in  the  skies.  If,  then,  a  large  propor- 
tion of  a  people  are  often  without  any  distinct  perception  of 
the  reasons  why  they  are  slaughtering  mankind,  it  implies, 
I  think,  prima  facie  evidence  against  the  adequacy  or  the 
justice  of  the  motives  to  slaughter. 

It  would  not,  perhaps,  be  affectation  to  say,  that  of  the 
reasons  why  we  so  readily  engage  in  war,  one  of  the  princi- 
pal is  that  we  do  not  inquire  into  the  subject.  We  have 
been  accustomed,  from  earliest  life,  to  a  familiarity  with  all 
its  "  pomp  and  circumstance  ;"  soldiers  have  passed  us  as  at 
every  step,  and  battles  and  victories  have  been  the  topic  of 
every  one  around  us.  War,  therefore,  becomes  familiarized 
to  all  our  thoughts,  and  interwoven  with  all  our  associations. 
We  have  never  inquired  whether  these  things  should  be : 
the  question  does  not  even  suggest  itself.  We  acquiesce  in 
it,  as  we  acquiesce  in  the  rising  of  the  sun,  without  any 
other  idea  than  that  it  is  a  part  of  the  ordinary  processes  of 
the  world.  And  how  are  we  to  feel  disapprobation  of  a 
system  that  we  do  not  examine,  and  of  the  nature  of  which 
we  do  not  think  ?  Want  of  inquiry  has  been  the  means  by 
which  long  continued  practices,  whatever  has  been  their 
enormity,  have  obtained  the  general  concurrence  of  the 
world,  and  by  which  they  have  continued  to  pollute  or  de- 
grade it,  long  after  the  few  who  inquire  into  their  nature, 


15 

have  discovered  them  to  be  bad.  It  was  by  these  means 
that  the  slave  trade  was  so  long  tolerated  by  this  land  of  hu- 
manity. Men  did  not  think  of  its  iniquity.  We  were  in- 
duced to  think,  and  we  soon  abhorred,  and  then  abolished  it. 
In  the  present  moral  state  of  the  world,  therefore,  I  believe 
it  is  the  business  of  him  who  would  perceive  pure  morality, 
to  question  the  purity  of  that  which  now  obtains. 

"  The  vices  of  another  age,"  says  Robertson,  "  astonish 
and  shock  us ;  the  vices  of  our  own  become  familiar,  and 
excite  little  horror." — "  The  influence  of  any  national  cus- 
tom, both  on  the  understanding  and  on  the  heart,  and  how  far 
it  may  go  towards  perverting  or  extinguishing  moral  princi- 
ples of  the  greatest  importance,  is  remarkable.  They  who 
[in  1566]  had  leisure  to  reflect  and  to  judge,  appear  to  be 
no  more  shocked  at  the  crime  of  assassination,  than  the 
persons  who  committed  it  in  the  heat  and  impetuosity  of 
passion."*  Two  hundred  and  fifty  years  have  added  some- 
thing to  our  morality.  We  have  learnt,  at  least,  to  abhor 
assassination ;  and  I  am  not  afraid  to  hope  that  the  time  will 
arrive  when  historians  shall  think  of  war,  what  Robertson 
thinks  of  murder,  and  shall  endeavour,  like  him,  to  account 
for  the  ferocity  and  moral  blindness  of  their  forefathers.  For 
I  do  not  think  the  influence  of  habit  in  the  perversion  or  ex- 
tinction of  our  moral  principles,  is  in  any  other  thing  so 
conspicuous  or  deplorable,  as  in  the  subject  before  us.  They 
who  are  shocked  at  a  single  murder  in  the  highway,  hear 
with  indifference  of  the  murder  of  a  thousand  on  the  field. f 
They  whom  the  idea  of  a  single  corpse  would  thrill  with 
terror,  contemplate  that  of  heaps  of  human  carcasses,  man- 
gled by  human  hands,  with  frigid  indifference.  If  a  murder 
is  committed,  the  narrative  is  given  in  the  public  newspaper, 
with  many  expressions  of  commiseration,  with  many  adjec- 
tives of  horror,  and  many  hopes  that  the  perpetrator  will  be 
detected.  In  the  next  paragraph,  the  editor,  perhaps,  tells 
us  that  he  has  hurried  a  second  edition  to  the  press,  in  order 
that  he  may  be  the  first  to  glad  the  public  with  the  intelli- 
gence, that  in  an  engagement  which  has  just  taken  place, 
eight  hundred  and  fifty  of  the  enemy  were  killed.^  By 
war,  the  natural  impulses  of  the  heart  seem  to  be  suspended, 
as  if  a  fiend  of  blood  were  privileged  to  exercise  a  spell  upon 
our  sensibilities,   whenever  we  contemplated  his   ravages. 

*  History  of  Scotland.  f  Note  A.  t  Note  B. 


16 

Amongst  all  the  shocking  and  all  the  terrible  scenes  the 
world  exhibits,  the  slaughters  of  war  stand  pre-eminent ;  yet 
these  are  the  scenes  of  which  the  compassionate  and  the  fe- 
rocious, the  good  and  the  bad,  alike  talk  with  complacency 
or  exultation. 

England  is  a  land  of  benevolence,  and  to  human  misery 
she  is,  of  all  nations,  the  most  prompt  in  the  extension  of  re- 
lief. The  immolations  of  the  Hindoos  fill  us  with  compas- 
sion or  horror,  and  we  are  zealously  labouring  to  prevent 
them.  The  sacrifices  of  life  by  our  own  criminal  executions, 
are  the  subject  of  our  anxious  commiseration,  and  we  are 
strenuously  endeavouring  to  diminish  their  number.  We 
feel  that  the  life  of  a  Hindoo  or  a  malefactor  is  a  serious 
thing,  and  that  nothing  but  imperious  necessity  should  in- 
duce us  to  destroy  the  one,  or  to  permit  the  destruction  of 
the  other.  Yet  what  are  these  sacrifices  of  life  in  compari- 
son with  the  sacrifices  of  war?  In  the  late  campaign  in 
Russia,  there  fell,  during  one  hundred  and  seventy-three 
days  in  succession,  an  average  of  two  thousand  nine  hun- 
dred men  per  day.  More  than  five  hundred  thousand  hu- 
man beings  in  less  than  six  months !  And  most  of  these 
victims  expired  with  peculiar  intensity  of  suffering.  "  Thou 
that  teachest  another,  teachest  thou  not  thyself?"  We  are 
carrying  our  benevolence  to  the  Indies,  but  what  becomes  of 
it  in  Russia  or  at  Leipsic  ?  We  are  labouring  to  save  a  few 
lives  from  the  gallows,  but  where  is  our  solicitude  to  save, 
them  on  the  field?  Life  is  life,  wheresoever  it  be  sacrificed, 
and  has  every  where  equal  claims  to  our  regard.  I  am  not 
now  inquiring  whether  war  is  right,  but  whether  we  do  not 
regard  its  calamities  with  an  indifference  with  which  we  re- 
gard no  others,  and  whether  that  indifference  does  not  make 
us  acquiesce  in  evils  and  in  miseries  which  we  should  other- 
wise prevent  or  condemn. 

Amongst  the  immediate  causes  of  the  frequency  of  war, 
there  is  one  which  is,  indisputably,  irreconcileable  in  its  na- 
ture with  the  principles  of  our  religion.  I  speak  of  the  cri- 
tical sense  of  national  pride,  and  consequent  aptitude  of 
offence,  and  violence  of  resentment.  National  irritability  is 
at  once  a  cause  of  war,  and  an  effect.  It  disposes  us  to  re- 
sent injuries  with  bloodshed  and  destruction;  and  a  war, 
when  it  is  begun,  inflames  and  perpetuates  the  passions  that 
produced  it.     Those  who  wish  a  war,  endeavour  to  rouse 


17 

the  spirit  of  a  people  by  stimulating  their  passions.  They 
talk  of  the  insult,  or  the  encroachments,  or  the  contempts  of 
the  destined  enemy,  with  every  artifice  of  aggravation  ;  they 
tell  us  of  foreigners  who  want  to  trample  upon  our  rights, 
of  rivals  who  ridicule  our  power,  of  foes  who  will  crush,  and 
of  tyrants  who  will  enslave  us.  These  men  pursue  their 
object,  certainly,  by  efficacious  means ;  they  desire  a  war, 
and  therefore  irritate  our  passions,  knowing  that  when  men 
are  angry  they  are  easily  persuaded  to  fight. 

In  this  state  of  irritability,  a  nation  is  continually  alive  to 
occasions  of  offence — and  when  we  seek  for  offences,  we 
readily  find  them.  A  jealous  sensibility  sees  insults  and  in- 
juries where  sober  eyes  see  nothing :  and  nations  thus  sur- 
round themselves  with  a  sort  of  artificial  tentacula,  which 
they  throw  wide  in  quest  of  irritation,  and  by  which  they 
are  stimulated  to  revenge,  by  every  touch  of  accident  or  in- 
advertency. 

He  that  is  easily  offended  will  also  easily  offend.  The 
man  who  is  always  on  the  alert  to  discover  trespasses  on  his 
honour  or  his  rights,  never  fails  to  quarrel  with  his  neigh- 
bours. Such  a  person  may  be  dreaded  as  a  torpedo.  We 
may  fear,  but  we  shall  not  love  him  ;  and  fear,  without  love, 
easily  lapses  into  enmity.  There  are,  therefore,  many  feuds 
and  litigations  in  the  life  of  such  a  man,  that  would  never 
have  disturbed  its  quiet,  if  he  had  not  captiously  snarled  at 
the  trespasses  of  accident,  and  savagely  retaliated  insignifi- 
cant injuries.  The  viper  that  we  chance  to  molest,  we  suffer 
to  live  if  he  continues  to  be  quiet ;  but  if  he  raise  himself  in 
menaces  of  destruction,  we  knock  him  on  the  head. 

It  is  with  nations  as  with  men.  If,  on  every  offence  we 
fly  to  arms,  and  raise  the  cry  of  blood,  we  shall  of  necessity 
provoke  exasperation  ;  and  if  we  exasperate  a  people  as  pe- 
tulant and  bloody  as  ourselves,  we  may  probably  continue 
to  butcher  one  another,  until  we  cease  only  from  emptiness 
of  exchequers,  or  weariness  of  slaughter.  To  threaten  war, 
is  therefore  often  equivalent  to  beginning  it.  In  the  present 
state  of  men's  principles,  it  is  not  probable  that  one  nation 
will  observe  another  levying  men,  and  building  ships,  and 
founding  cannon,  without  providing  men,  and  ships,  and 
cannon  themselves ;  and  when  both  are  thus  threatening  and 
defying,  what  is  the  hope  that  there  will  not  be  a  war?* 

*  Note  C. 
b2 


18 

It  will  scarcely  be  disputed  that  we  should  not  kill  one 
another  unless  we  cannot  help  it.  Since  war  is  an  enormous 
evil,  some  sacrifices  are  expedient  for  the  sake  of  peace  ;  and 
if  we  consulted  our  understandings  more  and  our  passions 
less,  we  should  soberly  balance  the  probabilities  of  mischief, 
and  inquire  whether  it  be  not  better  to  endure  some  evils 
that  we  can  estimate,  than  to  engage  in  a  conflict  of  which 
we  can  neither  calculate  the  mischief,  nor  foresee  the  event ; 
which  may  probably  conduct  us  from  slaughter  to  disgrace, 
and  which  at  last  is  determined,  not  by  justice,  but  by  power, 
Pride  may  declaim  against  these  sentiments ;  but  my  busi- 
ness is  not  with  pride,  but  with  reason :  and  I  think  reason 
determines  that  it  would  be  more  wise,  and  religion  that  it 
would  be  less  wicked,  to  diminish  our  punctiliousness  and 
irritability.  If  nations  fought  only  when  they  could  not  be  at 
peace,  there  would  be  very  little  fighting  in  the  world.  The 
wars  that  are  waged  for  "  insults  to  flags,"  and  an  endless 
train  of  similar  motives,  are  perhaps  generally  attributable 
to  the  irritability  of  our  pride.  We  are  at  no  pains  to  appear 
pacific  towards  the  offender :  our  remonstrance  is  a  threat  : 
and  the  nation,  which  would  give  satisfaction  to  an  inquiry, 
will  give  no  other  answer  to  a  menace  than  a  menace  in 
return.  At  length  we  begin  to  fight,  not  because  we  are 
aggrieved,  but  because  we  are  angry. 

The  object  of  the  haughtiness  and  petulance  which  one- 
nation  uses  towards  another,  is  of  course  to  produce  some 
benefit ;  to  awe  into  compliance  with  its  demands,  or  into 
forbearance  from  aggression.  Now  it  ought  to  be  distinctly 
shown,  that  petulance  and  haughtiness  are  more  efficacious 
than  calmness  and  moderation — that  an  address  to  the  pas- 
sions of  a  probable  enemy  is  more  likely  to  avert  mischief 
from  ourselves,  than  an  address  to  their  reason  and  their 
virtue.^  Nations  are  composed  of  men,  and  of  men  with 
human  feelings.  Whether  with  individuals  or  with  commu- 
nities, "  a  soft  answer  turneth  away  wrath."  There  is,  in- 
deed, something  in  the  calmness  of  reason — in  an  endeavour 
to  convince  rather  than  to  intimidate — in  an  honest  solici- 
tude for  friendliness  and  peace,  which  obtains,  which  com- 
mands, which  extorts  forbearance  and  esteem.*  This  is 
the  privilege  of  rectitude  and  truth.  It  is  an  inherent  quality 
of  their  nature ;  an  evidence  of  their  indentity  with  perfect 

*  Note  D. 


r 


19 

wisdom.  I  believe,  therefore,  that  even  as  it  concerns  our 
interests,  moderation  and  forbearance  would  be  the  most 
politic.  And  let  not  our  duties  be  forgotten ;  for  forbear- 
ance and  moderation  are  duties,  absolutely  and  indispensa- 
bly imposed  upon  us  by  Jesus  Christ. 

The  "  balance  of  power"  is  a  phrase  with  which  we  are 
made  sufficiently  familiar,  as  one  of  the  great  objects  of  na- 
tional policy,  that  must  be  attained,  at  whatever  cost  of 
treasure  or  of  blood.  The  support  of  this  balance,  therefore, 
is  one  of  the  great  purposes  of  war,  and  one  of  the  great  oc- 
casions of  its  frequency. 

It  is,  perhaps,  not  idle  to  remark,  that  a  balance  of  power 
amongst  nations,  is  inherently  subject  to  continual  interrup- 
tion. If  all  the  countries  of  Europe  were  placed  on  an 
equality  to-day,  they  would  of  necessity  become  unequal  to- 
morrow. This  is  the  inevitable  tendency  of  human  affairs. 
Thousands  of  circumstances  which  sagacity  cannot  foresee, 
will  continually  operate  to  destroy  an  equilibrium.  Of  men, 
who  enter  the  world  with  the  same  possessions  and  the  same 
prospects,  one  becomes  rich  and  another  poor ;  one  ha- 
rangues in  the  senate  and  another  labours  in  a  mine ;  one 
sacrifices  his  life  to  intemperance  and  another  starves  in  a 
garret.  How  accurately  soever  we  may  adjust  the  strength 
and  consequence  of  nations  to  each  other,  the  failure  of  one 
harvest,  the  ravages  of  one  tempest,  the  ambition  of  one 
man,  may  unequalize  them  in  a  moment.  It  is,  therefore, 
not  a  trifling  argument  against  this  anxious  endeavour  to 
attain  an  equipoise  of  power,  to  find  that  no  equipoise  can  be 
maintained.  When  negotiation  has  followed  negotiation, 
and  treaty  has  been  piled  upon  treaty,  and  war  has  succeed- 
ed to  war — the  genius  of  a  Napoleon,  or  the  fate  of  an  ar- 
mada, nullifies  our  labours  without  the  possibility  of  preven- 
tion. I  do  not  know  how  much  nations  have  gained  by  a 
balance  of  power,  but  it  is  worth  remembrance  that  some  of 
those  countries  which  have  been  most  solicitious  to  preserve 
it,  have  been  most  frequently  fighting  with  each  other.  How 
many  wars  has  a  balance  of  power  prevented,  in  comparison 
with  the  number  that  have  been  waged  to  maintain  it  1 

It  is,  indeed,  deplorable  enough,  that  such  a  balance  is  to 
be  desired ;  and  that  the  wickedness  and  violence  of  mankind 
are  so  great,  that  nothing  can  prevent  them  from  destroying 
one  another,  but  an  equality  of  the  means  of  destruction. 
In  such  a  state  of  malignity  and  outrage,  it  need  not  be  dis- 


20 

puted,  that,  if  it  could  be  maintained,  an  equality  of  strength 
is  sufficiently  desirable — as  tigers  may  be  restrained  from 
tearing  one  another  by  mutual  fear,  without  any  want  of 
savageness.  It  should  be  remembered,  then,  that  whatever 
can  be  said  in  favour  of  a  balance  of  power,  can  be  said 
only  because  we  are  wicked ;  that  it  derives  all  its  value 
from  our  crimes ;  and  that  it  is  wanted  only  to  restrain  the 
outrage  of  our  violence,  and  to  make  us  contented  to  growl, 
when  we  should  otherwise  fight. 

Wars  are  often  promoted  from  considerations  of  interest, 
as  well  as  from  passion.  The  love  of  gain  adds  its  influence 
to  our  other  motives  to  support  them,  and  without  other  mo- 
tives, we  know  that  this  love  is  sufficient  to  give  great  obli- 
quity to  the  moral  judgment,  and  to  tempt  us  to  many  crimes. 
During  a  war  often  years,  there  will  always  be  many  whose 
income  depends  on  its  continuance ;  and  a  countless  host  of 
commissaries  and  purveyors,  and  agents,  and  mechanics, 
commend  a  war,  because  it  fills  their  pockets.  These  men 
have  commonly  but  one  question  respecting  a  war,  and  that 
is, — whether  they  get  by  it.  This  is  the  standard  of  their 
decision,  and  this  regulates  the  measure  of  their  support.  If 
money  is  in  prospect,  the  desolation  of  a  kingdom  is  of  little 
concern  :  destruction  and  slaughter  are  not  to  be  put  in  com- 
petition with  a  hundred  a  year.  In  truth  it  seems  to  be  the 
system  of  the  conductors  of  a  war,  to  give  to  the  sources  of 
gain  every  possible  ramification.  The  more  there  are  who 
profit  by  it,  the  more  numerous  will  be  its  supporters ;  and 
thus  the  wishes  of  the  cabinet  become  united  with  the  ava- 
rice of  the  people,  and  both  are  gratified  in  slaughter  and 
devastation. 

A  support  more  systematic  and  powerful,  is,  however, 
given  to  war,  because  it  offers  to  the  higher  ranks  of  society, 
a  profession  which  unites  gentility  with  profit,  and  which, 
without  the  vulgarity  of  trade,  maintains  or  enriches  them. 
It  is  of  little  consequence  to  inquire  whether  the  distinction 
of  vulgarity  between  the  toils  of  war  and  the  toils  of  com- 
merce, be  fictitious.  In  the  abstract,  it  is  fictitious ;  but  of 
this  species  of  reputation,  public  opinion  holds  the  arbitrium, 
efjus,  et  norma — and  public  opinion  is  in  favour  of  war. 

The  army  and  the  navy,  therefore,  afford  to  the  middle 
and  higher  classes,  a  most  acceptable  profession.  The  pro- 
fession of  arms  is  like  the  profession  of  law  or  physic — a 
regular  source  of  employment  and  profit.     Boys  are  edu- 


21 

cated  for  the  army,  as  they  are  educated  for  the  bar ;  and 
parents  appear  to  have  no  other  idea  than  that  war  is  part 
of  the  business  of  the  world.  Of  younger  sons,*  whose 
fathers  do  not  choose  to  support  them  at  the  expense  of 
the  heir,  the  army  and  the  navy  are  the  common  resource. 
They  would  not  know  what  to  do  without  them.  To  many 
of  these,  the  news  of  a  peace  becomes  a  calamity :  principle  is 
not  powerful  enough  to  cope  with  interest :  They  prefer  the 
desolation  of  the  world,  to  the  loss  of  a  colonelcy.  It  is  in 
this  manner  that  much  of  the  rank,  the  influence,  and  the 
wealth  of  a  country  become  interested  in  the  promotion  of 
wars ;  and  when  a  custom  is  promoted  by  wealth,  and  in- 
fluence, and  rank,  whatjs  the  wonder  that  it  should  be  con- 
tinued ? 

Yet  it  is  a  dreadful  consideration  that  the  destruction  of 
our  fellows  should  become  a  business  by  which  to  live ;  and 
that  a  man  can  find  no  other  occupation  of  gain,  than 'that  of 
butchering  his  neighbours.  It  is  said,  (if  my  memory  serves 
me,  by  Sir  Walter  Raleigh,)  "  he  that  taketh  up  his  rest  to 
live  by  this  profession,  shall  hardly  be  an  honest  man." — 
"  Where  there  is  no  obligation  to  obey"  says  Lord  Clarendon, 
"  it  is  a  wronderful,  and  an  unnatural  appetite,  that  disposes 
men  to  be  soldiers,  that  they  may  know  how  to  live ;  and 
what  reputation  soever  it  may  have  in  politics,  it  can  have 
none  in  religion,  to  say,  that  the  art  and  conduct  of  a  soldier 
is  not  infused  by  nature,  but  by  study,  experience,  and  ob- 
servation ;  and  therefore  that  men  are  to  learn  it : — when, 
in  truth,  this  common  argument  is  made  by  appetite  to  ex- 
cuse, and  not  by  reason  to  support,  an  ill  custom."t  People 
do  not  often  become  soldiers  in  order  to  serve  their  country, 
but  to  serve  themselves.  An  income  is  commonly  the  mo- 
tive to  the  great,  and  idleness  to  the  poor.  To  plead  the 
love  of  our  country  is  therefore  hypocrisy ;  and  let  it  be  re- 
membered that  hypocrisy  is  itself  an  evidence,  and  an  ac- 
knowledgment, that  the  motive  which  it  would  disguise,  is 
bad. 

By  depending  upon  war  for  a  subsistence,  a  powerful  in- 
ducement is  given  to  desire  it ;  and  I  would  submit  it  to  the 
conscientious  part  of  the  profession,  that  he  who  desires  a 
war  for  the  sake  of  its  profits,  has  lost  something  of  his 
virtue :  he  has,  at  least,  enlisted  one  of  the  most  influential 

*  Note  E.  f  Lord  Clarendon's  Essays, 


22 

of  human  propensities  against  it,  and  when  the  prospect  of 
gratification  is  before  him — when  the  question  of  war  is  to 
be  decided — it  is  to  be  feared  that  he  will  suffer  the  whispers 
of  interest  to  prevail,  and  that  humanity,  and  religion,  and 
his  conscience  will  be  sacrificed  to  promote  it.  But  when- 
ever we  shall  have  learnt  the  nature  of  pure  Christianity, 
and  have  imbibed  its  dispositions,  we  shall  not  be  willing  to 
avail  ourselves  of  such  a  horrible  source  of  profit ;  nor  to 
contribute  to  the  misery,  and  wickedness,  and  destruction  of 
mankind,  in  order  to  avoid  a  false  and  foolish  shame. 

It  is  frequently  in  the  power  of  individual  statesmen  to 
involve  a  people  in  a  war.  "  Their  restraints,"  says  Knox, 
"  in  the  pursuit  of  political  objects^iare  not  those  of  morality 
and  religion,  but  solely  reasons  of  state,  and  political  cau- 
tion. Plausible  words  are  used,  but  they  are  used  to  hide 
the  deformity  of  the  real  principles.  Wherever  war  is 
deemed  desirable  in  an  interested  view,  a  specious  pretext 
never  yet  remained  unfound  ;"# — and  "  when  they  have 
once  said  what  they  think  convenient,  how  untruly  soever, 
they  proceed  to  do  what  they  judge  will  be  profitable,  how 
unjustly  soever ;  and  this,  men  very  absurdly  and  unrea- 
sonably, would  have  called  reason  of  state,  to  the  discredit 
of  all  solid  reason,  and  all  rules  of  probity."f  Statesmen 
have  two  standards  of  morality — a  social  and  a  political 
standard.  Political  morality  embraces  all  crimes ;  except, 
indeed,  that  it  has  that  technical  virtue  which  requires  that 
he  who  may  kill  a  hundred  men  with  bullets,  should  not  kill 
one  with  arsenic.  And  from  this  double  system  of  morals  it 
happens,  that  statesmen  who  have  no  restraint  to  political 
enormities  but  political  expediency,  are  sufficiently  amiable 
in  private  life. — But  "  probity,"  says  Bishop  Watson,  "  is 
an  uniform  principle;  it  cannot  be  put  on  in  our  private 
closet,  and  put  off  in  the  council-chamber  or  the  senate :" 
and  I  fear  that  he  who  is  wicked  as  a  statesman,  if  he  be 
good  as  a  man,  has  some  other  motive  to  goodness  than  its 
love — that  he  is  decent  in  private  life  because  it  is  not  expe- 
dient that  he  should  be  flagitious.  It  cannot  be  hoped  that 
he  has  much  restraint  from  principle.  I  believe,  however, 
the  time  will  come,  when  it  will  be  found  that  God  has  in- 
stituted but  one  standard  of  morality,  and  that  to  that  stand- 
ard is  required  the  universal  conformity,  of  nations,  and  of 
men. 

*  Knox's  Essays.  f  Lord  Clarendon's  Essays. 


23 

Of  the  wars  of  statesmen's  ambition,  it  is  not  necessary  to 
speak,  because  no  one,  to  whom  the  world  will  listen,  is 
willing  to  defend  them. 

But  statesmen  have,  besides  ambition,  many  purposes  of 
nice  policy  which  make  wars  convenient ;  and  when  they 
have  such  purposes,  they  are  cool  speculators  in  blood. 
They  who  have  many  dependents  have  much  patronage,  and 
they  who  have  much  patronage  have  much  power.  By  a 
war,  thousands  become  dependent  on  a  minister ;  and  if  he 
be  disposed,  he  can  often  pursue  schemes  of  guilt,  and  in- 
trench himself  in  unpunished  wickedness,  because  the  war 
enables  him  to  silence  the  clamor  of  opposition  by  an  office, 
and  to  secure  the  suffrages  of  venality  by  a  bribe.  He  has, 
therefore,  many  motives  to  war,  in  ambition  that  does  not 
refer  to  conquest ;  or  in  fear,  that  extends  only  to  his  office 
or  his  pocket :  and  fear  or  ambition,  are  sometimes  more 
interesting  considerations  than  the  happiness  and  the  lives  of 
men.  Or  perhaps  he  wants  to  immortalize  his  name  by  a 
splendid  administration ;  and  he  thinks  no  splendor  so  great 
as  that  of  conquest  and  plunder.  Cabinets  have,  in  truth, 
many  secret  motives  of  wars  of  which  the  people  know 
little.  They  talk  in  public  of  invasions  of  right,  of  breaches 
of  treaty,  of  the  support  of  honour,  of  the  necessity  of  reta- 
liation, when  these  motives  have  no  influence  on  their  deter- 
mination. Some  untold  purpose  of  expediency,  or  the  private 
quarrel  of  a  prince,  or  the  pique  or  anger  of  a  minister,  are 
often  the  real  motives  to  a  contest,  whilst  its  promoters  are 
loudly  talking  of  the  honour  or  the  safety  of  the  country. 
The  motives  to  war  are  indeed  without  end  to  their  number, 
or  their  iniquity,  or  their  insignificance.  What  was  the 
motive  to  Xerxes  in  his  invasion  of  Greece  ? 

It  is  to  be  feared  that  the  world  has  sometimes  seen  the 
example  of  a  war,  begun  and  prosecuted  for  the  simple  pur- 
pose of  appeasing  the  clamors  of  a  people  by  diverting  their 
attention : 

"  I  well  might  lodge  a  fear 
To  be  again  displaced;  which,  to  avoid, 
I  cut  them  off,  and  had  a  purpose  now 
To  lead  out  many  to  the  Holy  Land, 
Lest  rest  and  lying  still  might  make  them  look 
Too  near  into  my  state.     Therefore,  my  Harry, 
Be  it  thy  course  to  busy  giddy  minds 
With  foreign  quarrels;  that  action  hence  borne  out 
May  waste  the  memory  of  former  days," 


24 

When  the  profligacy  of  a  minister,  or  the  unpopularity  of 
his  measures,  has  excited  public  discontent,  he  can,  perhaps, 
find  no  other  way  of  escaping  the  resentment  of  the  people, 
than  by  thus  making  them  forget  it.  He  therefore  discovers 
a  pretext  for  denouncing  war  on  some  convenient  country, 
in  order  to  divert  the  indignation  of  the  public  from  himself 
to  their  new-made  enemies.  Such  wickedness  has  existed, 
and  may  exist  again.  Surely  it  is  nearly  the  climax  of  pos- 
sible iniquity.  I  know  not  whether  the  records  of  human 
infamy  present  another  crime  of  such  enormous,  or  such 
abandoned  wickedness.  A  monstrous  profligacy  or  ferocity 
that  must  be,  which,  for  the  sole  purpose  of  individual  inte- 
rest, enters  its  closet,  and  coolly  fabricates  pretences  for 
slaughter;  that  quietly  contrives  the  exasperation  of  the 
public  hatred,  and  then  flings  the  lighted  brands  of  war 
amongst  the  devoted  and  startling  people. 

The  public,  therefore,  whenever  a  war  is  designed,  should 
diligently  inquire  into  the  motives  of  engaging  in  it.  It 
should  be  an  inquiry  that  will  not  be  satisfied  with  idle  de- 
clamations on  indeterminate  dangers,  and  that  is  not  willing 
to  take  any  thing  upon  trust.  The  public  should  see  the 
danger  for  themselves  ;  and  if  they  do  not  see  it,  should  re- 
fuse to  be  led,  blindfold,  to  murder  their  neighbours.  This, 
we  think,  is  the  public  duty,  as  it  is  certainly  the  public  in- 
terest. It  implies  a  forgetfulness  of  the  ends  and  purposes 
of  government,  and  of  the  just  degrees  and  limitations  of 
obedience,  to  be  hurried  into  so  dreadful  a  measure  as  a  war, 
without  knowing  the  reason,  or  asking  it.  A  people  have 
the  power  of  prevention,  and  they  ought  to  exercise  it.  Let 
me  not,  however,  be  charged  with  recommending  violence 
or  resistance.  The  power  of  preventing  war,  consists  in  the 
power  of  refusing  to  take  part  in  it.  This  is  the  mode  of 
opposing  political  evil,  which  Christianity  permits,  and  in 
truth,  requires.  And  as  it  is  the  most  Christian  method,  so, 
as  it  respects  war,  it  were  certainly  the  most  efficacious  ;  for 
it  is  obvious  that  war  cannot  be  carried  on  without  the  co- 
operation of  the  people. 

But  I  believe  the  greatest  cause  of  the  popularity  of  war, 
and  of  the  facility  with  which  we  engage  in  it,  consists  in 
this ;  that  an  idea  of  glory  is  attached  to  military  exploits, 
and  of  honour  to  the  military  profession.  Something  of 
elevation  is  supposed  to  belong  to  the  character  of  the  sol- 
dier ;  whether  it  be  that  we  involuntarily  presume  his  per- 


25 

sonal  courage ;  or  that  he  who  makes  it  his  business  to 
defend  the  rest  of  the  community,  acquires  the  superiority 
of  a  protector ;  or  that  the  profession  implies  an  exemption 
from  the  laborious  and  the  "  meaner"  occupations  of  life. 
There  is  something  in  war,  whether  phantom  or  reality, 
which  glitters  and  allures ;  and  the  allurement  is  powerful, 
since  we  see  that  it  induces  us  to  endure  hardships  and  in- 
juries, and  expose  life  to  a  continual  danger.  Men  do  not 
become  soldiers  because  life  is  indifferent  to  them,  but  be- 
cause of  some  extrinsic  circumstances  which  attach  to  the 
profession ;  and  some  of  the  most  influential  of  these  circum- 
stances are  the  fame,  the  spirit,  the  honour,  the  glory, 
which  mankind  agree  belong  to  the  warrior.  The  glories 
of  battle,  and  of  those  who  perish  in  it,  or  who  return  in 
triumph  to  their  country,  are  favourite  topics  of  declamation 
with  the  historian,  the  biographer,  and  the  poet.*  They 
have  told  us  a  thousand  times  of  dying  heroes,  who  "  resign 
their  lives  amidst  the  joys  of  conquest,  and  filled  with  Eng- 
land's glory,  smile  in  death ;"  and  thus  every  excitement 
that  eloquence  and  genius  can  command,  is  employed  to 
arouse  that  ambition  of  fame  which  can  be  gratified  only  at 
the  expense  of  blood. 

There  are  many  ways  in  which  a  soldier  derives  pleasure 
from  his  profession.  A  military  officer,f  when  he  walks 
the  street,  is  an  object  of  notice  ;%  he  is  a  man  of  spirit, 
of  honour,  of  gallantry :  wherever  he  be,  he  is  distinguished 
from  ordinary  men  :  he  is  an  acknowledged  gentleman.  It 
he  engage  in  battle,  he  is  brave  and  noble,  and  magnani- 
mous :  If  he  be  killed,  he  has  died  for  his  country  ;  he  has 
closed  his  career  with  glory.  Now  all  this  is  agreeable  to 
the  mind ;  it  flatters  some  of  its  strongest  and  most  pervading 
passions ;  and  the  gratification  which  these  passions  derive 
from  war,  is  one  of  the  great  reasons  why  men  so  willingly 
engage  in  it. 

Now  we  ask  the  question  of  a  man  of  reason,  What  is  the 
foundation  of  this  fame  and  glory  ? — We  profess  that  accord- 
ing to  the  best  of  our  powers  of  discovery,  no  solid  foundation 
can  be  found.     Upon  the  foundation,  whatever  it  be,  an  im- 

*  Note  F. 

-j-  These  observations  apply  also  to  the  naval  profession?  but  I 
have  in  this  passage,  as  in  some  other  parts  of  the  Essay,  men- 
tioned only  soldiers,  to  prevent  circumlocution. 

*  Note  G. 

c 


26 

mense  structure  is  however  raised — a  structure  so  vast,  so 
brilliant,  so  attractive,  that  the  greater  portion  of  mankind 
are  content  to  gaze  in  admiration,  without  any  inquiry  into 
its  basis,  or  any  solicitude  for  its  durability. — If,  however, 
it  should  be,  that  the  gorgeous  temple  will  be  able  to  stand 
only  till  Christian  truth  and  light  become  predominant,  it 
surely  will  be  wise  of  those  who  seek  a  niche  in  its  apart- 
ments as  their  paramount  and  final  good,  to  pause  ere  they 
proceed.  If  they  desire  a  reputation  that  shall  outlive 
guilt  and  fiction,  let  them  look  to  the  basis  of  military  fame. 
If  this  fame  should  one  day  sink  into  oblivion  and  contempt, 
it  will  not  be  the  first  instance  in  which  wide  spread  glory 
has  been  found  to  be  a  glittering  bubble,  that  has  burst,  and 
been  forgotten.  Look  at  the  days  of  chivalry.  Of  the  ten 
thousand  Quixottes  of  the  middle  ages,  where  is  now  the 
honour  or  the  name  ?  Yet  poets  once  sang  their  praises,  and 
the  chronicler  of  their  achievements  believed  he  was  record- 
ing an  everlasting  fame.  Where  are  now  the  glories  of  the 
tournament  ?    Glories 

"Of  which  all  Europe  rung1  from  side  to  side." 

Where  is  the  champion  whom  princesses  caressed,  and  no- 
bles envied  ?  Where  are  now  the  triumphs  of  Duns  Scotus, 
and  where  are  the  folios  that  perpetuated  his  fame  1 — The 
glories  of  war  have  indeed  outlived  these  :  Human  passions 
are  less  mutable  than  human  follies;  but  I  am  willing  to 
avow  my  conviction  that  these  glories  are  alike  destined  to 
sink  into  forgetfulness ;  and  that  the  time  is  approaching, 
when  the  applauses  of  heroism,  and  the  splendours  of  con- 
quest, will  be  remembered  only  as  follies  and  iniquities  that 
are  past. — Let  him  who  seeks  for  fame,  other  than  that 
which  an  era  of  Christian  purity  will  allow, — make  haste  ; 
for  every  hour  that  he  delays  its  acquisition  will  shorten  its 
duration.  This  is  certain  if  there  be  certainty  in  the  pro- 
mises of  Heaven.* 

In  inquiring  into  the  foundation  of  military  glory,  it  will 
be  borne  in  mind,  that  it  is  acknowledged  by  our  adversa- 
ries, that  this  glory  is  not  recognized  by  Christianity.  No 
part  of  the  heroic  character,  says  one  of  the  great  advocates 
of  war,  is  the  subject  of  the  "  commendation  or  precepts  or 
example"  of  Christ ;  but  the  character  and  dispositions  most 

*  Note  H. 


27 

opposite  to  the  heroic,  are  the  subject  of  them  all.*  This  is 
a  great  concession  ;  and  it  surely  is  the  business  of  Chris- 
tians, who  are  sincere  in  their  profession,  to  doubt  the  purity 
of  that  "  glory"  and  the  rectitude  of  that  "  heroic  charac- 
ter," which  it  is  acknowledged  that  their  Great  Instructor, 
never  in  any  shape  countenanced,  and  often  obliquely  con- 
demned. 

If  it  be  attempted  to  define  why  glory  is  allotted  to  the 
soldier,  we  suppose  that  we  shall  be  referred  to  his  skill,  or 
his  bravery,  or  his  patriotism. 

Of  skill,  it  is  not  necessary  to  speak,  since  very  few  have 
the  opportunity  of  displaying  it.  The  business  of  the  great 
majority  is  only  obedience ;  and  obedience  of  that  sort  which 
almost  precludes  the  exercise  of  talent. 

The  rational  and  immortal  being,  who  raises  the  edifice 
of  his  fame  on  simple  bravery,  has  chosen  but  an  unworthy 
and  a  frail  foundation.  Separate  bravery  from  motives  and 
purposes,  and  what  will  remain  but  that  which  is  possessed 
by  a  mastiff  or  a  game-cock  ?  All  just,  all  rational,  and  we 
will  venture  to  affirm,  all  permanent  reputation,  refers  to  the 
mind  or  to  virtue  ;  and  what  connexion  has  animal  power  or 
animal  hardihood  with  intellect  or  goodness?  I  do  not  de- 
cry courage.  I  know  that  He  who  was  better  acquainted 
than  we  are  with  the  nature  and  worth  of  human  actions, 
attached  much  value  to  courage — but  he  attached  none  to 
bravery. — Courage  He  recommended  by  his  precepts,  and 
enforced  by  his  example  :— Bravery  he  never  recommended 
at  all.  The  wisdom  of  this  distinction,  and  its  accordancy 
with  the  principles  of  his  religion,  are  plain.  Bravery  re- 
quires the  existence  of  many  of  those  dispositions  which  he 
disallowed.  Animosity,  resentment,  the  desire  of  retaliation, 
the  disposition  to  injure  and  destroy,  all  this  is  necessary  to 
bravery ;  but  all  this  is  incompatible  with  Christianity.  The 
courage  which  Christianity  requires,  is,  to  bravery,  what 
fortitude  is  to  daring — an  effort  of  the  mind  rather  than  of 
the  spirits.  It  is  a  calm,  steady  determinateness  of  purpose, 
that  will  not  be  diverted  by  solicitation,  or  awed  by  fear. 
"  Behold,  I  go  bound  in  the  spirit  unto  Jerusalem,  not  know- 
ing the  things  that  shall  befall  me  there,  save  that  the  Holy 
Ghost  witnesseth  in  every  city,  saying,  that  bonds  and  afflic- 

*  Dr.  Paley. 

"Christianity  quite  annihilates  the  disposition  for  martial  g-lo» 
ry." — Bishop  Watson. 


28 

tions  abide  me.  But  none  of  these  things  move  me  ;  neither 
count  I  my  life  dear  unto  myself."*  What  resemblance 
has  bravery  to  courage  like  this  1  This  courage  is  a  virtue 
and  a  virtue  which  it  is  difficult  to  acquire  or  to  practise : 
and  we  have,  therefore,  heedlessly  or  ingeniously,  trans- 
ferred its  praise  to  another  quality,  which  is  inferior  in  its 
nature,  and  easier  to  acquire,  in  order  that  we  may  obtain 
the  reputation  of  virtue  at  a  cheap  rate.  That  simple  bra- 
very implies  much  merit,  it  will  be  difficult  to  show — at 
least,  if  it  be  meritorious,  we  think  it  will  not  always  be 
easy  in  awarding  the  honours  of  a  battle,  to  determine  the 
preponderance  of  virtue  between  the  soldier  and  the  horse 
which  carries  him. 

But  patriotism  is  the  great  foundation  of  the  soldier's 
glory.  Patriotism  is  the  universal  theme.  To  "  fight  nobly 
for  our  country;" — to  "fall,  covered  with  glory,  in  our 
country's  cause ;" — to  "  sacrifice  our  lives  for  the  liberties, 
and  laws  and  religion  of-  our  country" — are  phrases  in  the 
mouth  of  every  man. — What  do  they  mean,  and  to  whom 
do  they  apply  ? 

We  contend  that  to  say  generally  of  those  who  perish  in 
war,  that  "  they  have  died  for  their  country,"  is  simply  un- 
true ;  and  for  this  simple  reason,  that  they  did  not  fight  for 
it.  To  impugn  the  notion  of  ages,  is  perhaps  a  hardy  task  : 
but  we  wish  to  employ  not  dogmatism  but  argument :  and 
we  maintain  that  men  have  commonly  no  such  purity  of 
motive,  that  they  have  no  such  patriotism.  What  is  the 
officer's  motive  to  entering  the  army  ?  We  appeal  to  him- 
self.— Is  it  not  that  he  may  obtain  an  income  ?  And  what 
is  the  motive  of  the  private  1  Is  it  not  that  he  prefers  a  life 
of  idleness  to  industry,  or  that  he  had  no  wish  but  the  wish 
for  change  ? — -Having  entered  the  army,  what,  again,  is  the 
soldier's  motive  to  fight  1  Is  it  not  that  fighting  is  a  part  of 
his  business — that  it  is  one  of  the  conditions  of  his  servi- 
tude?— We  are  not  now  saying  that  these  motives  are  bad, 
but  we  are  saying  that  they  are  the  motives, — -and  that  pa- 
triotism is  not.-\  Of  those  who  fall  in  battle,  is  there  one 
in  a  hundred  who  even  thinks  of  his  country's  good  ?  He 
thinks,  perhaps,  of  its  glory,  and  of  the  honour  of  his  regi- 
ment, but  for  his  country's  advantage  or  welfare,  he  has  no 
care  and  no  thought.  He  fights,  because  fighting  is  a  matter 

*  Acts  xx.  22.  f  Note  I. 


29 

of  course  to  a  soldier,  or  because  his  personal  reputation  is 
at  stake,  or  because  he  is  compelled  to  fight,  or  because  he 
thinks  nothing  at  all  of  the  matter ;  but  seldom,  indeed,  be- 
cause he  wishes  to  benefit  his  country.  He  fights  in  battle, 
as  a  horse  draws  in  a  carriage,  because  he  is  compelled  to 
do  it,  or  because  he  has  done  it  before ;  but  he  seldom  thinks 
more  of  his  country's  good,  than  the  same  horse,  if  he  were 
carrying  corn  to  a  granary,  would  think  he  was  providing 
for  the  comforts  of  his  master. 

And,  indeed,  if  the  soldier  speculated  on  his  country's  good, 
he  often  cannot  tell  how  it  is  affected  by  the  quarrel.  Nor 
is  it  to  be  expected  of  him  that  he  should  know  this.  When 
there  is  a  rumour  of  a  war,  there  is  an  endless  diversity  of 
opinions  as  to  its  expediency,  and  endless  oppositions  of  con- 
clusion, whether  it  will  tend  more  to  the  good  of  the  country, 
to  prosecute  or  avoid  it.  If  senators  and  statesmen  cannot 
calculate  the  good  or  evil  of  a  war,  if  one  promises  advan- 
tages and  another  predicts  ruin,  how  is  the  soldier  to  decide  ? 
And  without  deciding  and  promoting  the  good,  how  is  he  to 
be  patriotic?  Nor  will  much  be  gained  by  saying,  that 
questions  of  policy  form  no  part  of  his  business,  and  that  he 
has  no  other  duty  than  obedience ;  since  this  is  to  reduce  his 
agency  to  the  agency  of  a  machine :  and,  moreover,  by  this 
rule  his  arms  might  be  directed,  indifferently,  to  the  annoy- 
ance of  another  country,  or  to  the  oppression  of  his  own. 
The  truth  is,  that  we  give  to  the  soldier,  that  of  which  we 
are  wont  to  be  sufficiently  sparing — a  gratuitous  concession 
of  merit.  In  ordinary  life,  an  individual  maintains  his  indi- 
vidual opinions,  and  pursues  correspondent  conduct,  with 
the  approbation  of  one  set  of  men,  and  the  censures  of  ano- 
ther.— One  party  says,  he  is  benefiting  his  country,  and 
another  maintains  that  he  is  ruining  it.  But  the  soldier,  for 
whatever  he  fights,  and  whether  really  in  promotion  of  his 
country's  good,  or  in  opposition  to  it,  is  always  a  patriot, 
and  is  always  secure  of  his  praise.  If  the  war  is  a  national 
calamity,  and  was  foreseen  to  be  such,  still  he  fights  for  his 
country :  If  his  judgment  has  decided  against  the  war,  and 
against  its  justice  or  expediency,  still  he  fights  for  his  coun- 
try. He  is  always  virtuous  : — If  he  but  uses  a  bayonet,  he 
is  always  a  patriot. 

To  sacrifice  our  lives  for  the  liberties,  and  laws,  and 
religion  of  our  native  land,  are  undoubtedly  high-sounding 
words : — but  who  are  they  that  will  do  it  ?  Who  is  it  that 
c2 


30 

will  sacrifice  his  life  for  his  country  ?  Will  the  senator  who 
supports  a  war  ?  Will  the  writer  who  declaims  upon  pa- 
triotism? Will  the  minister  of  religion  who  recommends 
the  sacrifice  ?• — Take  away  glory — take  away  war,  and 
there  is  not  a  man  of  them  who  will  do  it.  Will  you  sacrifice 
your  life  at  home  ? — If  the  loss  of  your  life  in  London  or  at 
York,  would  procure  just  so  much  benefit  to  your  country, 
as  the  loss  of  one  soldier  in  the  field,  would  you  be  willing 
to  lay  your  head  upon  the  block?  Are  you  willing  to  die 
without  notice  and  without  remembrance ;  and  for  the  sake 
of  this  little  un discoverable  contribution  to  your  country's 
good  ?  You  would,  perhaps,  die  to  save  your  country ;  but 
this  is  not  the  question.  A  soldier's  death  does  not  save  his 
country.  The  question  is,  whether,  without  any  of  the  cir- 
cumstances of  war,  without  any  of  its  glory  or  its  pomp, 
you  are  willing  to  resign  yourself  to  the  executioner.  If  you 
are  not,  you  are  not  willing  to  die  for  your  country :  And 
there  is  not  an  individual  amongst  the  thousands  who  de- 
claim upon  patriotism,  who  is  willing  to  do  it.  He  will  lay 
down  his  life,  indeed — but  it  must  be  in  war :  He  is  willing 
to  die — but  it  is  not  for  patriotism,  but  for  glory. 

The  argument  we  think  is  clear — that  patriotism  is  istot 
the  motive ;  and  that  in  no  rational  use  of  language  can  it  be 
said  that  the  soldier  "  dies  for  his  country."  Men  will  not 
sacrifice  their  lives  at  all,  unless  it  be  in  war,  and  they  do 
not  sacrifice  them  in  war  from  motives  of  patriotism.* 

What  then  is   the  foundation  of  military  fame?     Is  it 

*  We  know  that  there  may  be,  and  have  been,  cases  in  which 
the  soldier  possesses  purer  motives.  An  invasion  may  arouse  the 
national  patriotism  and  arm  a  people  for  the  unmingled  purpose 
of  defending-  themselves.  Here  is  a  definite  purpose,  a  purpose 
which  every  individual  understands  and  is  interested  in:  and  if  he 
die  under  such  circumstances,  we  do  not  deny  that  his  motives 
are  patriotic. f  The  actions  to  which  they  prompt,  are,  how- 
ever, a  separate  consideration,  and  depend  for  their  qualities  on 
the  rectitude  of  war  itself.  Motives  may  be  patriotic,  when  ac- 
tions are  bad.  I  might,  perhaps,  benefit  my  country  by  blowing- 
up  a  fleet,  of  which  the  carg-o  would  injure  our  commerce:  My 
motive  may  be  patriotic,  but  my  action  is  vicious. 

Ic  is  not  sufficiently  borne  in  mind,  that  patriotism,  even  much 
purer  than  this,  is  not  necessarily  a  virtue.  "Christianity,"  says 
Bishop  Watson,  "does  not  encourage  particular  patriotism,  in 
opposition  to  general  benignity."  And  the  reason  is  easy  of  dis- 
covery. Christianity  is  designed  to  benefit,  not  a  community, 
t  Note  J. 


31 

bravery?  Bravery  has  little  connexion  with  reason,  and 
less  with  religion :  Intellect  may  despise,  and  Christianity 
condemns  it.  Is  it  patriotism  ?  Do  we  refer  to  the  soldier's 
motives  and  purposes  1  If  we  do,  he  is  not  necessarily,  or 
often,  a  patriot.— It  was  a  common  expression  amongst  sai- 
lors, and,  perhaps,  may  be  so  still — "I  hate  the  French, 
because  they  are  slaves,  and  wear  wooden  shoes." — This 
was  the  sum  of  their  reasonings  and  their  patriotism ;  and  I 
do  not  think  the  mass  of  those  who  fight  on  land,  possess  a 
greater. 

Crimes  should  be  traced  to  their  causes ;  and  guilt  should 
be  fixed  upon  those  who  occasion,  although  they  may  not 
perpetrate  them.  And  to  whom  are  the  frequency  and  the 
crimes  of  war  to  be  principally  attributed  ?  To  the  directors 
of  public  opinion,  to  the  declaimers  upon  glory : — to  men 
who  sit  quietly  at  home,  in  their  studies  and  at  their  desks  ; 
to  the  historian  and  the  biographer,  and  the  poet,  and  the 
moral  philosopher ;  to  the  pamphleteer ;  to  the  editor  of  the 
newspaper ;  to  the  teacher  of  religion.*  One  example  of 
declamation  from  the  pulpit,  I  would  offer  to  the  reader  : — 
Go  then,  ye  defenders  of  your  country  ;  advance  with  alac- 
rity, into  the  field,  where  God  himself  musters  the  hosts  to 
war.  Religion  is  too  much  interested  in  your  success,  not 
to  lend  you  her  aid.  She  will  shed  over  this  enterprise  her 
selectest  influence. — I  cannot  but  imagine,  the  virtuous  he- 
roes, legislators,  and  patriots,  of  every  age  and  country,  are 
bending  from  their  elevated  seats  to  witness  this  contest,  as 
if  they  were  incapable,  till  it  be  brought  to  a  favourable 
issue,  of  enjoying  their  eternal  repose.  Enjoy  that  repose, 
illustrious  immortals  !  Your  mantle  fell  when  you  ascended, 
and  thousands,  inflamed  with  spirit,  and  impatient  to  tread 
in  your  steps,  are  ready  to  swear  by  Him  that  sitteth  upon 
the  throne,  and  liveth  for  ever  and  ever,  they  will  protect 
freedom  in  her  last  asylum,  and  never  desert  that  cause 
which  you  sustained  by  your  labours,  and  cemented  with 
your  blood.  And  thou,  sole  Ruler  among  the  children  of 
men,  to  whom  the  shields  of  the  earth  belong,— Gird  on  thy 

but  the  world.  If  it  unconditionally  encourag-ed  particular  pa- 
triotism, the  duties  of  a  subject  of  one  state  would  often  be  in 
opposition  to  those  of  a  subject  of  another.  Christianity,  how- 
ever, knows  no  such  inconsistencies:  And  whatever  patriotism 
therefore  is  opposed,  in  its  exercise,  to  the  general  welfare  of 
mankind,  is,  in  no  degree,  a  virtue. 
*  Note  K. 


32 

sword,  thou  most  Mighty  :  Go  forth  with  our  hosts  in  the 
day  of  battle !  Impart,  in  addition  to  their  hereditary  valour, 
that  confidence  of  success  which  springs  from  thy  presence ! 
Pour  into  their  hearts  the  spirit  of  departed  heroes  !  Inspire 
them  with  thine  own ;  and  while  led  by  thine  hand,  and 
fighting  under  thy  banners,  open  thou  their  eyes  to  behold 
in  every  valley,  and  in  every  plain,  what  the  prophet  beheld 
by  the  same  Illumination — chariots  of  fire,  and  horses  of 
fire.  Then  shall  the  strong  man  be  as  tow,  and  the  maker 
of  it  as  a  spark ;  and  they  shall  both  burn  together,  and 
none  shall  quench  them  !"*  Of  such  irreverence  of  lan- 
guage, employed,  to  convey  such  violence  of  sentiment,  the 
world,  I  hope,  has  had  few  examples.  Oh!  how  unlike 
another  exhortation — "  Put  on  mercies,  kindness,  humble- 
ness of  mind,  meekness,  long  suffering,  forbearing  one  ano- 
ther, and  forgiving  one  another,  if  any  man  have  a  quarrel 
against  any."f 

"  As  long  as  mankind,"  says  Gibbon,  "  shall  continue  to 
bestow  more  liberal  applause  on  their  destroyers  than  on 
their  benefactors,  the  thirst  of  military  glory  will  ever  be  the 
vice  of  Jhe  most  exalted  characters." J  "  'Tis  strange  to 
imagine,"  says  the  Earl  of  Shaftesbury,  "  that  war,  which 
of  all  things  appears  the  most  savage,  should  be  the  passion 

*  "  The  sentiments  proper  to  the  Crisis. — A  Sermon,  preached 
October  19,  1803,  by  Robert  Hall,  A.  M." 

j-  Nor  is  the  preacher  inconsistent  with  Jlpostles  alone.  He  is 
also  inconsistent  with  himself.  In  another  discourse,  delivered 
in  the  preceding-  year,  he  says:  ft  The  safety  of  nations  is  not  to 
be  sought  in  arts  or  in  arms. — War  reverses,  with  respect  to  its 
objects,  all  the  rules  of  morality.  It  is  nothing  less  than  a  tempo- 
rary repeal  of  all  the  principles  of  virtue.  It  is  a  s}''stem,  out  of 
which  almost  all  the  virtues  are  excluded,  and  in  which  nearly  all 
the  vices  are  incorporated. — In  instructing-  us  to  consider  a  portion 
of  our  fellow  cieatures  as  the  proper  objects  of  enmity,  it  removes, 
as  far  as  they  are  concerned,  the  basis  of  all  society,  of  all  civiliza- 
tion and  virtue ,•  for  the  basis  of  these,  is  the  good  will  due  to  every 
individual  of  the  species. "  i  *  Religion,"  then,  we  are  told,  * '  sheds 
its  selectest  influence  over  that,  which  repeals  all  the  principles 
of  virtue" — over  that,  "in  which  nearly  all  the  vices  are  incor- 
porated!" What  "Religion"  it  is  which  does  this,  I  do  not 
know, — but  I  know  that  it  is  not  the  religion  of  Christ. — Trt;th 
never  led  into  contradictions  like  these.  "Well  was  it  said  that 
we  cannot  serve  two  masters.  The  quotations  which  we  have 
given,  are  evidence  sufficient  that  he  who  holds  with  the  one,  ne- 
glects the  other. 

t  Decline  and  Fall. 


33 

of  the  most  heroic  spirits." — But  he  gives  us  the  reason. — 
"  By  a  small  misguidance  of  the  affection,  a  lover  of  man- 
kind becomes  a  ravager ;  a  hero  and  deliverer  becomes  an 
oppressor  and  destroyer."*  This  is  the  "  vice,"  and  this  is 
the  "  misguidance,"  which  we  say,  that  a  large  proportion 
of  the  writers  of  every  civilized  country  are  continually  oc- 
casioning and  promoting ;  and  thus,  without,  perhaps,  any 
purpose  of  mischief,  they  contribute  more  to  the  destruction 
of  mankind  than  rapine  or  ambition.  A  writer  thinks,  per- 
haps, that  it  is  not  much  harm  to  applaud  bravery.  The 
divergency  from  virtue  may,  indeed,  be  small  in  its  begin- 
ning, but  the  effect  of  his  applauses  proceeds  in  the  ]ine  of 
obliquity,  until  it  conducts,  at  last,  to  every  excess  of  out- 
rage, to  every  variety  of  crime,  to  every  mode  of  human  de- 
struction. 

There  is  one  species  of  declamation  on  the  glories  of  those 
who  die  in  battle,  to  which  I  would  beg  the  notice  of  the 
reader.  We  are  told  that  when  the  last  breath  of  exultation 
and  defiance  is  departed,  the  intrepid  spirit  rises  triumph- 
antly from  the  field  of  glory  to  its  kindred  heavens.  What 
the  hero  has  been  on  earth,  it  matters  not :  if  he  dies  by  a 
musket  ball,  he  enters  heaven  in  his  own  right.  All  men 
like  to  suppose  that  they  shall  attain  felicity  at  last ;  and  to 
find  that  they  can  attain  it  without  goodness  and  in  spite  of 
vice,  is  doubtless  peculiarly  solacing.  The  history  of  the 
hero's  achievements,  wants,  indeed,  a  completeness  without 
it ;  and  this  gratuitous  transfer  of  his  soul  to  heaven,  forms 
an  agreeable  conclusion  to  his  story. 

I  would  be  far  from  "  dealing  damnation  round  the  land," 
and  undoubtingly  believe  that  of  those  who  fall  in  battle, 
many  have  found  an  everlasting  resting-place.  But  an  in- 
discriminate consignment  of  the  brave  to  felicity,  is  certainly 
unwarranted ;  and  if  wickedness  consists  in  the  promotion  of 
wickedness,  it  is  wicked  too. 

If  we  say  in  positive  and  glowing  language,  of  men  indis- 
criminately, and  therefore  of  the  bad,  that  they  rise  on  the 
wings  of  ecstasy  to  heaven,  we  do  all  that  language  can  do 
in  the  encouragement  of  profligacy.  The  terrors  of  religion 
may  still  be  dreaded ;  but  we  have,  at  least,  to  the  utmost  of 
our  power,  diminished  their  influence.  The  mind  willingly 
accepts  the  assurance,  or  acquiesces  in  the  falsehood  which 

*  Essay  on  the  Freedom  of  Wit  and  Humour. 


34 

it  wishes  to  be  true ;  and  in  spite  of  all  their  better  know- 
ledge, it  may  be  feared  that  some  continue  in  profligacy,  in 
the  doubting  hope  that  what  poets  and  historians  tell  them, 
may  not  be  a  fiction. 

Perhaps  the  most  operative  encouragement  which  these 
declamations  give  to  the  soldier's  vices,  is  contained  in  this 
circumstance — that  they  manifest  that  public  opinion  does 
not  hold  them  in  abhorrence.  Public  opinion  is  one  of  the 
most  efficacious  regulators  of  the  passions  of  mankind ;  and 
upon  the  soldier  this  rein  is  peculiarly  influential.  His  pro- 
fession and  his  personal  conduct  derive  almost  all  their 
value  and  their  reputation  from  the  opinion  of  the  world, 
and  from  that  alone.  If,  therefore,  the  public  voice  does  not 
censure  his  vices — if,  in  spite  of  his  vices,  it  awards  him 
everlasting  happiness,  what  restraint  remains  upon  his  pas- 
sions, or  what  is  the  wonder  if  they  be  not  restrained  ? 

The  peculiar  application  of  the  subject  to  our  purpose,  is, 
however,  that  these  and  similar  representations  are  motives 
to  the  profession  of  arms.  The  military  life  is  made  a  pri- 
vileged profession,  in  which  a  man  may  indulge  vices  with 
impunity.  His  occupation  is  an  apology  for  his  crimes,  and 
shields  them  from  punishment.  And  what  greater  motive 
to  the  military  life  can  be  given  ?  Or  what  can  be  more  atro- 
cious than  the  crime  of  those  who  give  it  1  I  know  not, 
indeed,  whether  the  guilt  predominates,  or  the  folly.  Pitia- 
ble imbecility  surely  it  is,  that  can  persuade  itself  to  sacri- 
fice all  the  beauties  of  Virtue,  and  all  the  realities  and  terrors 
of  Religion,  to  the  love  of  the  flowing  imagery  of  Spirits 
ascending  to  heaven.  Whether  writers  shall  do  this,  is  a 
question,  not  of  choice,  but  of  duty :  If  we  would  not  be  the 
abettors  of  crime,  and  the  sharers  of  its  guilt,  it  is  imperative 
that  we  refrian. 

The  reader  will,  perhaps,  have  observed,  that  some  of 
those  writers  who  are  liberal  contributors  to  the  military 
passion,  occasionally,  in  moments  when  truth  and  nature 
seem  to  have  burst  the  influence  of  habit,  emphatically  con- 
demn the  system  which  they  have  so  often  contributed  to 
support.  There  are  not  many  books  of  which  the  tendency 
is  more  warlike,  or  which  are  more  likely  to  stimulate  the 
passion  for  martial  glory,  than  the  life  of  Nelson,  by  Southey ; 
a  work,  in  the  composition  of  which,  it  probably  never  sug- 
gested itself  to  the  author  to  inquire  whether  he  were  not 
contributing  to  the  destruction  of  mankind.     A  contributor, 


35 

however,  as  he  has  been,  we  find  in  another  of  his  works, 
this  extraordinary  and  memorable  passage  : — "  There  is  but 
one  community  of  Christians  in  the  world,  and  that  unhap- 
pily, of  all  communities  one  of  the  smallest,  enlightened 
enough  to  understand  the  prohibition  of  war  by  our  Divine 
Master,  in  its  plain,  literal,  and  undeniable  sense :  and 
conscientious  enough  to  obey  it,  subduing  the  very  instinct 
of  nature  to  obedience."*  Of  these  voluntary,  or  involuntary, 
testimonies  of  the  mind  against  the  principles  which  it  habi- 
tually possesses,  and  habitually  inculcates,  many  examples 
might  be  given  ;f  and  they  are  valuable  testimonies,  because 
they  appear  to  be  elicited  by  the  influence  of  simple  nature 
and  unclouded  truth.  This,  I  think,  is  their  obvious  charac- 
ter. They  will  commonly  be  found  to  have  been  written 
when  the  mind  has  become  sobered  by  reason,  or  tranquil- 
lized by  religion ;  when  the  feelings  are  not  excited  by  exter- 
nal stimulants,  and  when  conquest,  and  honour,  and  glory, 
are  reduced  to  that  station  of  importance  to  which  Truth 
assigns  them. 

But  whether  such  testimonies  have  much  tendency  to 
give  conviction  to  a  reader,  I  know  not.  Surrounded  as 
they  are  with  a  general  contrariety  of  sentiment,  it  is  possi- 
ble that  those  who  read  them  may  pass  them  by  as  the 
speculations  of  impracticable  morality.  I  cannot,  however, 
avoid  recommending  the  reader,  whenever  he  meets  with 
passages  like  these,  seriously  to  examine  into  their  meaning 
and  their  force ;  to  inquire  whether  they  be  not  accordant 
with  the  purity  of  truth,  and  whether  they  do  not  possess 
the  greater  authority,  because  they  have  forced  themselves 
from  the  mind  when  least  likely  to  be  deceived,  and  in  oppo- 
sition to  ail  its  habits  and  all  its  associations. 

Such,  then,  are  amongst  the  principal  of  the  causes  of 
war. — Some  consist  in  want  of  thought,  and  some  in  delu 
sion ;  some  are  mercenary,  and  some  simply  criminal. 
Whether  any  or  all  of  them,  form  a  motive  to  the  desolation 
of  empires  and  to  human  destruction,  such  as  a  good  or 
a  reasoning  man,  who  abstracts  himself  from  habitual  feel- 
ings, can  contemplate  with  approbation,  is  a  question  which 
every  one  should  ask  and  determine  for  himself.  A  conflict 
of  nations  is  a  serious  thing :  No  motive  arising  from  our 
passions  should  occasion  it,  or  have  any  influence  in  occa- 

*  History  of  Brazil.  f  See  "  The  Inquiry,  &c." 


36 

sioning  it :  Supposing  the  question  of  lawfulness  to  be  su- 
perseded, war  should  be  imposed  only  by  stern,  inevitable, 
unyielding  necessity.  That  such  a  necessity  is  contained  in 
these  motives,  I  think  cannot  be  shown.  We  may,  there- 
fore, reasonably  question  the  defensibility  of  the  custom, 
which  is  continued  by  such  causes,  and  supported  with  such 
motives.  If  a  tree  is  known  by  its  fruits,  we  may  also  judge 
of  the  fruit  by  the  tree :  •'  Men  do  not  gather  grapes  of 
thorns."  If  the  motives  to  war,  and  its  causes  are  impure, 
war  itself  cannot  be  virtuous ;  and  I  would,  therefore,  so- 
lemnly invite  the  reader  to  give,  to  the  succeeding  Inquiry, 
his  sober  and  Christian  attention. 


PART  II. 
AX  IXCtUIRY,  &, 


When  I  endeavour  to  divest  myself  of  the  influence  of 
habit,  and  to  contemplate  a  battle  with  those  emotions  which 
it  would  excite  in  the  mind  of  a  being  who  had  never  before 
heard  of  human  slaughter,  I  find  that  I  am  impressed  only 
with  horror  and  astonishment:  and,  perhaps,  of  the  two 
emotions,  astonishment  is  the  greatest. 

That  several  thousand  persons  should  meet  together,  and 
then  deliberately  begin  to  kill  one  another,  appears  to  the 
understanding,  a  proceeding  so  preposterous,  so  monstrous, 
that  I  think  a  being,  such  as  I  have  supposed,  would  inevi- 
tably conclude  that  they  were  mad.  Nor,  if  it  were  at- 
tempted to  explain  to  him  some  motives  to  such  conduct,  do 
I  believe  that  he  would  be  able  to  comprehend  how  any  pos- 
sible circumstances  could  make  it  reasonable.  The  ferocity 
and  prodigious  folly  of  the  act,  would  out-balance  the  weight 
of  every  conceivable  motive,  and  he  would  turn,  unsatisfied 
away, 

"Astonished  at  the  madness  of  mankind." 

There  is  an  advantage  in  making  suppositions  such  as 
these ;  because,  when  the  mind  has  been  familiarised  to  a 
practice,  however  monstrous  or  inhuman,  it  loses  some  of 
its  sagacity  of  moral  perception — profligacy  becomes  ho- 
nour, and  inhumanity  becomes  spirit.  But  if  the  subject  is 
by  some  circumstance  presented  to  the  mind  unconnected 
with  any  of  its  previous  associations,  we  see  it  with  a  new 
judgment  and  new  feelings ;  and  wonder,  perhaps,  that  we 
have  not  felt  so  or  thought  so,  before.  And  such  occasions 
it  is  the  part  of  a  wise  man  to  seek ;  since  if  they  never  hap- 

D 


38 

pen  to  us,  it  will  often  be  difficult  for  us  accurately  to  esti- 
mate the  qualities  of  human  actions,  or  to  determine  whether 
we  approve  them  from  a  decision  of  our  judgment,  or  whe- 
ther we  yield  to  them  only  the  acquiescence  of  habit. 

It  is  worthy,  at  least,  of  notice  and  remembrance,  that  the 
only  being  in  the  creation  of  Providence  which  engages  in 
the  wholesale  destruction  of  his  own  species,  is  man ;  that 
being  who  alone  possesses  reason  to  direct  his  conduct,  who 
alone  is  required  to  love  his  fellows,  and  who  alone  hopes, 
in  futurity,  for  repose  and  peace.  All  this  seems  wonderful, 
and  may  reasonably  humiliate  us.  The  powers  which  ele- 
vate us  above  the  rest  of  the  creation,  we  have  employed  in 
attaining  to  pre-eminence  of  outrage  and  malignity. 

It  may  properly  be  a  subject  of  wonder,  that  the  argu- 
ments which  are  brought  to  justify  a  custom  such  as  war, 
receive  so  little  investigation.  It  must  be  a  studious  inge- 
nuity of  mischief,  which  could  devise  a  practice  more  cala- 
mitous or  horrible  1  and  yet  it  is  a  practice  of  which  it  rarely 
occurs  to  us  to  inquire  into  the  necessity,  or  to  ask  whether 
it  cannot  be,  or  ought  not  to  be  avoided.  In  one  truth,  how- 
ever, all  will  acquiesce, — that  the  arguments  in  favour  of 
such  a  practice  should  be  unanswerably  strong. 

Let  it  not  be  said  that  the  experience  and  the  practice  of 
other  ages,  have  superseded  the  necessity  of  inquiry  in  our 
own ;  that  there  can  be  no  reason  to  question  the  lawfulness 
of  that  which  has  been  sanctioned  by  forty  centuries ;  or 
that  he  who  presumes  to  question  it,  is  amusing  himself  with 
schemes  of  visionary  philanthropy.  "  There  is  not,  it  may 
be,"  says  Lord  Clarendon,  "  a  greater  obstruction  to  the  in- 
vestigation of  truth,  or  the  improvement  of  knowledge,  than 
the  too  frequent  appeal,  and  the  too  supine  resignation  of  our 
understanding,  to  antiquity."*  Whosoever  proposes  an  altera- 
tion of  existing  institutions,  will  meet,  from  some  men,  with  a 
sort  of  instinctive  opposition,  which  appears  to  be  influenced 
by  no  process  of  reasoning,  by  no  considerations  of  propriety, 
or  principles  of  rectitude,  which  defends  the  existing  system 
because  it  exists,  and  which  would  have  equally  defended  its 
opposite  if  that  had  been  the  oldest.  "  Nor  is  it  out  of  mo- 
desty that  we  have  this  resignation,  or  that  we  do,  in  truth, 
think  those  who  have  gone  before  us  to  be  wiser  than  our- 
selves :  we  are  as  proud  and  as  peevish  as  any  of  our  pro- 

*  Lord  Clarendon's  Essays. 


39 

genitors ;  but  it  is  out  of  laziness ;  we  will  rather  take  their 
words,  than  take  the  pains  to  examine  the  reason  they  go- 
verned themselves  by."*  To  those  who  urge  objections 
from  the  authority  of  ages,  it  is,  indeed,  a  sufficient  answer 
to  say,  that  they  apply  to  every  long  continued  custom. 
Slave  dealers  urged  them  against  the  friends  of  the  abolition  ; 
Papists  urged  them  against  Wickliffe  and  Luther ;  and  the 
Athenians  probably  thought  it  a  good  objection  to  an  Apos- 
tle, that  "  he  seemed  to  be  a  setter  forth  of  strange  gods." 

It  is  agreed  by  all  sober  moralists,  that  the  foundation  of 
our  duty  is  the  will  of  God,  and  that  his  will  is  to  be  ascer- 
tained by  the  Revelation  which  he  has  made.  To  Chris- 
tianity, therefore,  we  refer  in  determination  of  this  great 
question :  We  admit  no  other  test  of  truth :  and  with  him 
who  thinks  that  the  decisions  of  Christianity  may  be  super- 
seded by  other  considerations,  we  have  no  concern ,*  we  ad- 
dress not  our  argument  to  him,  but  leave  him  to  find  some 
other  and  better  standard,  by  which  to  adjust  his  principles, 
and  regulate  his  conduct.  These  observations  apply  to  those 
objectors  who  loosely  say  that  "  wars  are  necessary ;  for 
supposing  the  Christian  religion  to  prohibit  war,  it  is  prepos- 
terous, and  irreverent  also,  to  justify  ourselves  in  supporting 
it,  because  "  it  is  necessary."  To  talk  of  a  Divine  law 
which  must  be  disobeyed,  implies,  indeed,  such  a  confusion 
of  moral  principles  as  well  as  laxity  of  them,  that  neither 
the  philosopher  nor  the  Christian,  are  required  to  notice  it. 
But,  perhaps,  some  of  those  who  say  that  wars  are  necessary, 
do  not  very  accurately  inquire  what  they  mean.  There  are 
two  sorts  of  necessity — moral  and  physical ;  and  these,  it  is 
probable,  some  men  are  accustomed  to  confound.  That 
there  is  any  physical  necessity  for  war — that  people  cannot, 
if  they  choose,  refuse  to  engage  in  it,  no  one  will  maintain  : 
And  a  moral  necessity  to  perform  an  action,  consists  only 
in  the  prospect  of  a  certain  degree  of  evil  by  refraining  from 
it.  If,  then,  those  who  say  that  "wars  are  necessary," 
mean  that  they  are  physically  necessary,  we  deny  it.  If 
they  mean  that  wars  avert  greater  evils  than  they  occasion, 
we  ask  for  proof.  Proof  has  never  yet  been  given :  Artd 
even  if  we  thought  that  we  possessed  such  proof,  we  should 
still  be  referred  to  the  primary  question — "  What  is  the  will 
of  God?" 

*  Lord  Clarendon's  Essays. 


40 

It  is  some  satisfaction  to  be  able  to  give,  on  a  question  of 
this  nature,  the  testimony  of  some  great  minds  against  the 
lawfulness  of  war,  opposed,  as  those  testimonies  are,  to  the 
general  prejudice  and  the  general  practice  of  the  world.  It 
has  been  observed  by  Beccaria,  that  "  it  is  the  fate  of  great 
truths,  to  glow  only  like  a  flash  of  lightning  amidst  the  dark 
clouds  in  which  error  has  enveloped  the  universe  ;  and  if  our 
testimonies  are  few  or  transient,  it  matters  not,  so  that  their 
light  be  the  light  of  truth.  There  are,  indeed,  many,  who 
in  describing  the  horrid  particulars  of  a  siege  or  a  battle,  in- 
dulge in  some  declamation  on  the  horrors  of  war,  such  as 
has  been  often  repeated,  and  often  applauded,  and  as  often 
forgotten.  But  such  declamations  are  of  little  value  and  of 
little  effect :  he  who  reads  the  next  paragraph,  finds,  proba- 
bly, that  he  is  invited  to  follow  the  path  to  glory  and  to 
victory — to  share  the  hero's  danger  and  partake  the  hero's 
praise  ;  and  he  soon  discovers  that  the  moralizing  parts  of 
his  author,  are  the  impulse  of  feelings  rather  than  of  princi- 
ples, and  thinks  that  though  it  may  be  very  well  to  write, 
yet  it  is  better  to  forget  them. 

There  are,  however,  testimonies,  delivered  in  the  calm  of 
reflection,  by  acute  and  enlightened  men,  which  may  rea- 
sonably be  allowed  at  least  so  much  weight  as  to  free  the 
present  inquiry  from  the  charge  of  being  wild  or  visionary. 
Christianity  indeed  needs  no  such  auxiliaries  ;  but  if  they  in- 
duce an  examination  of  her  duties,  a  wise  man  will  not  wish 
them  to  be  disregarded. 

"  They  who  defend  war,"  says  Erasmus,  "  must  defend 
the  dispositions  which  lead  to  war ;  and  these  dispositions 
are  absolutely  forbidden  by  the  gospel. — Since  the  time  that 
Jesus  Christ  said  put  up  thy  sword  into  its  scabbard,  Chris- 
tians ought  not  to  go  to  war. — Christ  suffered  Peter  to  fall 
into  an  error  in  this  matter,  on  purpose  that,  when  He  had 
put  up  Peter's  sword,  it  might  remain  no  longer  a  doubt 
that  war  was  prohibited,  which,  before  that  order,  had 
been  considered  as  allowable." — "  I  am  persuaded,"  says 
the  Bishop  of  Llandaff,  "  that  when  the  spirit  of  Chris- 

Itianity  shall  exert  its  proper  influence  over  the  minds  of 
individuals,  and  especially  over  the  minds  of  public  men  in 
their  public  capacities,  over  the  minds  of  men  constituting 
\  the  councils  of  princes,  from  whence  are  the  issues  of  peace 
and  war — when  this  happy  period  shall  arrive,  war  will 


41 

cease  throughout  the  whole  Christian  world."*  "  War," 
says  the  same  acute  prelate,  "  has  practices  and  principles 
peculiar  to  itself,  which  but  ill  quadrate  with  the  rule  of 
moral  rectitude,  and  are  quite  abhorrent  from  the  be- 
nignity of  Christianity. "f  The  emphatical  declaration 
which  I  have  already  quoted  for  another  purpose,  is  yet 
more  distinct.  The  prohibition  of  war  by  our  Divine 
Master,  is  plain,  literal,  and  undeniable. $  Dr.  Vicesimus 
Knox  speaks  in  language  equally  specific: — " Morality 
and  Religion  forbid  war,  in  its  motives,  conduct,  and  con- 
sequences."^ 

In  an  inquiry  into  the  decisions  of  Christianity  upon  the 
question  of  war,  we  have  to  refer— to  the  general  tendency 
of  the  revelation;  to  the  individual  declarations  of  Jesus 
Christ ;  to  his  practice ;  to  the  sentiments  and  practices  of 
his  commissioned  followers ;  to  the  opinions  respecting  its 
lawfulness,  which  were  held  by  their  immediate  converts ; 
and  to  some  other  species  of  Christian  evidence. 

It  is,  perhaps,  the  capital  error  of  those  who  have  at- 
tempted to  instruct  others  in  the  duties  of  morality,  that  they 
have  not  been  willing  to  enforce  the  rules  of  the  Christian 
Scriptures  in  their  full  extent.  Almost  every  moralist  pauses 
somewhere,  short  of  the  point  which  they  prescribe ;  and 
this  pause  is  made  at  a  greater  or  less  distance  from  the 
Christian  Standard,  in  proportion  to  the  admission,  in  a 
greater  or  less  degree,  of  principles  which  have  been  super- 
added to  the  principles  of  the  gospel.  Few,  however,  su- 
persede the  laws  of  Christianity,  without  proposing  some 
principle  of  "  expediency,"  some  doctrine  of  "  natural  law," 
some  theory  of  "  intrinsic  decency  and  turpitude,"  which 
they  lay  down  as  the  true  standard  of  moral  judgment. — 
They  who  reject  truth  are  not  likely  to  escape  error. 
Having  mingled  with  Christianity  principles  which  it  never 
taught,  we  are  not  likely  to  be  consistent  with  Truth,  or 
with  ourselves ;  and,  accordingly,  he  who  seeks  for  direc- 
tion from  the  professed  teachers  of  morality,  finds  his  mind 
bewildered  in  conflicting  theories,  and  his  judgment  embar- 
rassed by  contradictory  instructions.- — But  "  Wisdom  is  jus- 
tified by  all  her  children  :"  and  she  is  justified,  perhaps,  by 
nothing  more  evidently  than  by  the  laws  which  she  has  im* 

*  Life  of  Bishop  Watson.  j  lb. 

*  Southey's  History  of  Brazil.  §  Essays. 


42 

posed  ;  for  all  who  have  proposed  any  standard  of  rectitude, 
other  than  that  which  Christianity  has  laid  down,  or  who 
have  admixed  any  foreign  principles  with  the  principles 
which  she  teaches,  have  hitherto  proved  that  they  have  only 
been  "  sporting  themselves  with  their  own  deceivings."* 

It  is  a  remarkable  fact,  that  the  laws  of  the  Mosaic  Dis- 
pensation, which,  confessedly,  was  an  imperfect  system,  are 
laid  down  clearly  and  specifically  in  the  form  of  an  express 
code ;  whilst  those  of  that  purer  religion  which  Jesus  Christ 
introduced  into  the  world,  are  only  to  be  found,  casually  and 
incidentally  scattered,  as  it  were,  through  a  volume — inter- 
mixed with  other  subjects — elicited  by  unconnected  events — 
delivered  at  distant  periods,  and  for  distant  purposes,  in  nar- 
ratives, in  discourses,  in  conversations,  in  letters.  Into  the 
final  purpose  of  such  an  ordination,  (for  an  ordination  it 
must  be  supposed  to  be,)  it  is  not  our  present  business  to 
inquire.  One  important  truth,  however,  results  from  the 
fact  as  it  exists : — That  those  who  would  form  a  general  es- 
timate of  the  moral  obligations  of  Christianity,  must  derive 
it,  not  from  Codes  but  from  Principles ;  not  from  a  multi- 
plicity of  directions  in  what  manner  we  are  to  act,  but  from 
instructions  respecting  the  motives  and  dispositions  by  which 
all  actions  are  to  be  regulated,  f 

It  appears,  therefore,  to  follow,  that  in  the  inquiry  whe- 
ther war  is  sanctioned  by  Christianity,  a  specific  declaration 
of  its  decision  is  not  likely  to  be  found.  If,  then,  we  be 
asked  for  a  prohibition  of  war  by  Jesus  Christ,  in  the  ex- 
press terms  of  a  command,  in  the  manner  in  which  Thou 
shalt  not  kill  is  directed  to  murder,  we  willingly  answer 
that  no  such  prohibition  exists  : — and  it  is  not  necessary  to 
the  argument.  Even  those  who  would  require  such  a  pro- 
hibition, are  themselves  satisfied  respecting  the  obligation  of 
many  negative  duties,  on  which  there  has  been  no  specific 
decision  in  the  New  Testament.     They  believe  that  suicide 

*  "  Even  thinking-  men,  bewildered  by  the  various  and  contra- 
dictory systems  of  moral  judgment,  adopted  by  different  ages  and 
nations,  have  doubted  the  existence  of  any  real  and  permanent 
standard,  and  have  considered  it  as  the  mere  creature  of  habit 
and  education. "§ — How  has  the  declaration  been  verified — "I 
will  destroy  the  wisdom  of  the  wise. 

f  I  refer,  of  course,  to  those  questions  of  morality  which  are 
not  specifically  decided. 

§  Murray's  Inquiries  respecting  the  Progress  of  Society. 


43 

is  not  lawful.  Yet  Christianity  never  forbade  it.  It  can 
be  shown,  indeed,  by  implication  and  inference,  that  suicide 
could  not  have  been  allowed,  and  with  this  they  are  satisfied. 
Yet  there  is,  probably,  in  the  Christian  Scriptures,  not  a 
twentieth  part  of  as  much  indirect  evidence  against  the  law- 
fulness of  suicide  as  there  is  against  the  lawfulness  of  war. 
To  those  who  require  such  a  command  as  Thou  shalt  not 
engage  in  war,  it  is  therefore  sufficient  to  reply,  that  they 
require  that,  which  upon  this  and  upon  many  other  subjects, 
Christianity  has  not  chosen  to  give. 

We  refer  then,  first,  to  the  general  nature  of  Christianity  ; 
because  we  think  that  if  there  were  no  other  evidence  against 
the-lawfulness  of  war,  we  should  possess,  in  that  general 
nature,  sufficient  proof  that  it  is  virtually  forbidden. 

That  the  whole  character  and  spirit  of  our  religion  are 
eminently  and  peculiarly  peaceful,  and  that  it  is  opposed,  in 
all  its  principles  to  carnage  and  devastation,  cannot  be  dis- 
puted. 

Have  peace  one  with  another.— By  this  shall  all  men 
know  that  ye  are  my  disciples,  if  ye  have  love  one  to  ano- 
ther. 

Walk  with  all  lowliness  and  meekness,  with  long-suf- 
fering, forbearing  one  another  in  love. 

Be  ye  all  of  one  mind,  having  compassion  one  of  ano- 
ther ;  love  as  brethren,  be  pitiful,  be  courteous,  not  render- 
ing evil  for  evil,  or  railing  for  railing. 

Be  at  peace  among  yourselves.  See  that  none  render 
evil  for  evil  to  any  man. — God  hath  called  us  to  peace. 

Follow  after  love,  patience,  meekness. — Be  gentle,  show- 
ing all  meekness  unto  all  men. — Live  in  peace. 

Lay  aside  all  malice. — Put  off  anger,  wrath,  malice. — 
Let  all  bitterness,  and  wrath,  and  anger,  and  clamour,  and 
evil  speaking  be  put  away  from  you,  with  all  malice. 

Avenge  not  yourselves. — If  thine  enemy  hunger,  feed 
him  ;  if  he  thirst,  give  him  drink. — Recompense  to  no  man 
evil  for  evil. — Overcome  evil  with  good. 

Now  we  ask  of  any  man  who  looks  over  these  passages, 
what  evidence  do  they  convey  respecting  the  lawfulness  of 
war  ?  Could  any  approval  or  allowance  of  it  have  been 
subjoined  to  these  instructions,  without  obvious  and  most 
gross  inconsistency  ?— But  if  war  is  obviously  and  most 
grossly  inconsistent  with  the  general  character  of  Chris- 
tianity— if  war  could  not  have  been  permitted  by  its  teachers, 


44 

without  any  egregious  violation  of  their  own  precepts,  we 
think  that  the  evidence  of  its  unlawfulness,  arising  from 
this  general  character  alone,  is  as  clear,  as  absolute,  and 
as  exclusive,  as  could  have  been  contained  in  any  form  of 
prohibition  whatever. 

To  those  solemn,  discriminative,  and  public  declarations 
of  Jesus  Christ,  which  are  contained  in  the  "  sermon  on  the 
mount,"  a  reference  will  necessarily  be  made  upon  this 
great  question ;  and,  perhaps,  more  is  to  be  learnt  from  these 
declarations,  of  the  moral  duties  of  his  religion,  than  from 
any  other  part  of  his  communications  to  the  world.  It 
should  be  remarked  in  relation  to  the  injunctions  which  fol- 
low, that  he  repeatedly  refers  to  that  less  pure  and  less 
peaceable  system  of  morality,  which  the  law  of  Moses  had 
inculcated  and  contradistinguishes  it  from  his  own. 

"  Ye  have  heard  that  it  hath  been  said,  An  eye  for  an 
eye,  and  a  tooth  for  a  tooth,  but  J  say  unto  you  that  ye  re- 
sist not  evil ;  but  whosoever  shall  smite  thee  on  thy  right 
cheek,  turn  to  him  the  other  also." — "  Ye  have  heard  that 
it  hath  been  said,  Thou  shalt  love  thy  neighbour,  and  hate 
thine  enemy ;  but  /  say  unto  you,  Love  your  enemies  ;  bless 
them  that  curse  you ;  do  good  to  them  that  hate  you,  and 
pray  for  them  which  despitefully  use  you  and  persecute  you  ; 
for  if  ye  love  them  only  which  love  you,  what  reward 
have  ye?"* 

There  is  an  extraordinary  emphasis  in  the  form  of  these 
prohibitions  and  injunctions.  They  are  not  given  in  an  in- 
sulated manner.  They  inculcate  the  obligations  of  Chris- 
tianity as  peculiar  to  itself.  The  previous  system  of  reta- 
liation is  introduced  for  the  purpose  of  prohibiting  it,  and  of 
distinguishing  more  clearly  and  forcibly  the  pacific  nature 
of  the  new  dispensation. 

Of  the  precepts  from  the  mount  the  most  obvious  charac- 
teristic is  greater  moral  excellence  and  superior  purity. 
They  are  directed,  not  so  immediately  to  the  external  regu- 
lation of  the  conduct,  as  to  the  restraint  and  purification  of  the 
affections.  In  another  preceptf  it  is  not  enough  that  an 
unlawful  passion  be  just  so  far  restrained  as  to  produce  no 
open  immorality — the  passion  itself  is  forbidden.  The  ten- 
dency of  the  discourse  is  to  attach  guilt  not  to  action  only, 
but  also  to  thought.     It  has  been  said,  Thou  shalt  not  kill, 

*  Matt.  v.  &c.  f  Matt.  v.  28. 


45 

and  whosoever  shall  kill,  shall  be  in  danger  of  the  judg-  j 
ment ;  but  /  say  that  whosoever  is  angry  with  his  brother 
without  a  cause,  shall  be  in  danger  of  the  judgment.*  Our 
lawgiver  attaches  guilt  to  some  of  the  violent  feelings,  such 
as  resentment,  hatred,  revenge ;  and  by  doing  this,  we  con- 
tend that  he  attaches  guilt  to  war.  War  cannot  be  carried 
on  without  these  passions  which  he  prohibits.  Our  argu- 
ment therefore  is  syllogistical.  War  cannot  be  allowed,  if 
that  which  is  necessary  to  war,  is  prohibited. 

It  was  sufficient  for  the  law  of  Moses,  that  men  maintain- 
ed love  towards  their  neighbours ;  towards  an  enemy  they 
were  at  liberty  to  indulge  rancour  and  resentment.  But 
Christianity  says,  "  If  ye  love  them  only  which  love  you, 
what  reward  have  ye  1 — Love  your  enemies."  Now  what 
sort  of  love  does  that  man  bear  towards  his  enemy,  who 
runs  him  through  with  a  bayonet  1  We  contend  that  the 
distinguishing  duties  of  Christianity  must  be  sacrificed  when 
war  is  carried  on.  The  question  is  between  the  abandon- 
ment of  these  duties  and  the  abandonment  of  war,  for  both 
cannot  be  retained,  f 

It  is  however  objected  that  the  prohibitions  "  Resist  not 
evil,"  &c.  are  figurative ;  and  that  they  do  not  mean  that  no 
injury  is  to  be  punished,  and  no  outrage  to  be  repelled.  It 
has  been  asked  with  complacent  exultation,  what  would 
these  advocates  of  peace  say  to  him  who  struck  them  on  the 
right  cheek  ?  Would  they  turn  to  him  the  other  ?  What 
would  these  patient  moralists  say  to  him  who  robbed  them 
of  a  coat  1  Would  they  give  him  a  cloak  also  ?  What  would 
these  philanthropists  say  to  him  who  asked  them  to  lend  a 
hundred  pounds?  Would  they  not  turn  away?  This  is 
argumentum  ad  hominem  ;  one  example  amongst  the  many, 
of  that  lowest  and  most  dishonest  of  all  modes  of  intellectual 
warfare,  which  consists  in  exciting  the  feelings  instead  of 
convincing  the  understanding.  It  is,  however,  some  satis- 
faction, that  the  motive  to  the  adoption  of  this  mode  of  war- 
fare, is  itself  an  evidence  of  a  bad  cause ;  for  what  honest 

*  Matt.  v.  22. 

f  Yet  the  retention  of  both  has  been,  unhappily  enough,  at- 
tempted. In  a  late  publication,  of  which  part  is  devoted  to  the 
defence  of  war,  the  author  gravely  recommends  soldiers,  whilst 
shooting*  and  stabbing  their  enemies,  to  maintain  towards  them  a 
feeling  of  "good  will!" — Tracts  and  Essays  by  the  late  William 
Hey,  Esq.  F.  R.  S. 


46 

reasoner  would  produce  only  a  laugh,  if  he  were  able  to 
produce  conviction.  But  I  must  ask  in  my  turn,  what  do 
these  objectors  say  is  the  meaning  of  the  precepts  1  What  is 
the  meaning  of  "  Resist  not  evil  ?"  Does  it  mean  to  allow  bom- 
bardment— devastation — murder?  If  it  does  not  mean  to  allow 
all  this,  it  does  not  mean  to  allow  war.  What  again  do  the  ob- 
jectors say  is  the  meaning  of  "  Love  your  enemies,"  or  of  "  do 
good  to  them  that  hate  you  V  Does  it  mean  "  ruin  their  com- 
merce"— "  sink  their  fleets" — "  plunder  their  cities" — shoot 
through  their  hearts  1"  If  the  precept  does  not  mean  all  this,  it 
does  not  mean  war.  We  are,  then,  not  required  to  define  what 
exceptions  Christianity  may  admit  to  the  application  of  some 
of  the  precepts  from  the  Mount ;  since,  whatever  exceptions 
she  may  allow,  it  is  manifest  what  she  does  not  allow  :  for  if 
we  give  to  our  objectors  whatever  license  of  interpretation 
they  may  desire,  they  cannot,  either  by  honesty  or  disho- 
nesty, so_  interpret  the  precepts  as  to  make  them  allow 
war.  I  would,  however,  be  far  from  insinuating  that  we  are 
left  without  any  means  of  determining  the  degree  and  kind  of 
resistance,  which,  in  some  cases,  is  lawful ;  although  I  be- 
lieve no  specification  of  it  can  be  previously  laid  down : 
For  if  the  precepts  of  Christianity  had  been  multiplied  a 
thousand-fold,  there  would  still  have  arisen  many  cases  of 
daily  occurrence,  to  which  none  of  them  would  precisely 
have  applied.  Our  business,  then,  so  far  as  written  rules  are 
concerned,  is,  in  all  cases  to  which  these  rules  do  not  apply, 
to  regulate  our  conduct  by  those  general  principles  and  dis- 
positions which  our  religion  enjoins.  I  say,  so  far  as  written 
rules  are  concerned  ;  for  "  if  any  man  lack  wisdom,"  and 
these  rules  do  not  impart  it,  "  let  him  ask  of  God."* 

Of  the  injunctions  that  are  contrasted  with  "  eye  for  eye, 
and  tooth  for  tooth,"  the  entire  scope  and  purpose  is  the  sup- 
pression of  the  violent  passions,  and  the  inculcation  of  for- 
bearance, and  forgiveness,  and  benevolence,  and  love.  They 
forbid,  not  specifically  the  act,  but  the  spirit  of  war ;  and  this 

*  It  is  manifest,  from  the  New  Testament,  that  we  are  not  re- 
quired to  give  "  a  cloak,"  in  every  case  to  him  who  robs  us  of 
"a  coat;"  but  I  think  it  is  equally  manifest  that  we  are  required 
to  give  it  not  the  less  because  he  has  robbed  us:  The  circumstance 
of  his  having-  robbed  us,  does  not  entail  an  oblig-ation  to  give;  but 
it  also  does  not  impart  a  permission  to  withhold.  If  the  necessi- 
ties of  the  plunderer  require  relief,  it  is  the  business  of  the  plun- 
dered to  relieve  them. 


47 

method  of  prohibition,  Christ  ordinarily  employed.  He  did 
not  often  condemn  the  individual  doctrines  or  customs  of  the 
age,  however  false  or  however  vicious ;  but  he  condemned 
the  passions  by  which  only  vice  could  exist,  and  inculcated 
the  truth  which  dismissed  every  error.  And  this  method 
was  undoubtedly  wise.  In  the  gradual  alterations  of  human 
wickedness,  many  new  species  of  profligacy  might  arise 
which  the  world  had  not  yet  practised :  In  the  gradual  vicis- 
situdes of  human  error,  many  new  fallacies  might  obtain 
which  the  world  had  not  yet  held  :  and  how  were  these  errors 
and  these  crimes  to  be  opposed,  but  by  the  inculcation  of 
principles  that  were  applicable  to  every  crime  and  to  every 
error  ? — Principles  which  tell  us  not  always  what  is  wrong, 
but  which  tell  us  what  always  is  right. 

There  are  two  modes  of  censure  or  condemnation ;  the  one 
is  to  reprobate  evil,  and  the  other  to  enforce  the  opposite  good, 
and  both  these  modes  were  adopted  by  Christ  in  relation  to 
war. — He  not  only  censured  the  passions  that  are  necessary 
to  war,  but  inculcated  the  affections  which  are  most  opposed 
to  them.  The  conduct  and  dispositions  upon  which  he  pro- 
nounced his  solemn  benediction  are  exceedingly  remarkable. 
They  are  these,  and  in  this  order :  Poverty  of  spirit — Mourn- 
ing— Meekness — Desire  of  righteousness — Mercy — Purity  of 
heart — Peace  making — Sufferance  of  persecution.  Now  let 
the  reader  try  whether  he  can  propose  eight  other  qualities, 
to  be  retained  as  the  general  habit  of  the  mind,  which  shall 
be  more  incongruous  with  war. 

Of  these  benedictions  I  think  the  most  emphatical  is  that 
pronounced  upon  the  Peace-makers  :  "  Blessed  are  the  peace- 
makers ;  for  they  shall  be  called  the  children  of  God."* 
Higher  praise  or  a  higher  title,  no  man  can  receive.  Now 
I  do  not  say  that  these  benedictions  contain  an  absolute  proof 
that  Christ  prohibited  war,  but  I  say  they  make  it  clear  that 
he  did  not  approve  it.  Pie  selected  a  number  of  subjects  for 
his  solemn  approbation  ;  and  not  one  of  them  possesses  any 
congruity  with  war,  and  some  of  them  cannot  possibly  exist 
in  conjunction  with  it.  Can  any  one  believe  that  he  who 
made  this  selection,  and  who  distinguished  the  peace-makers 
with  peculiar  approbation,  could  have  sanctioned  his  followers 
in  murdering  one  another  ?  Or  does  any  one  believe  that 
those  who  were  mourners,  and  meek,  and  merciful,  and  peace- 

*  Matt.  v.  9. 


48 

making,  could  at  the  same  time  perpetrate  such  murder?  If 
1  be  told  that  a  temporary  suspension  of  Christian  dispositions, 
although  necessary  to  the  prosecution  of  war,  does  not  imply 
the  extinction  of  Christian  principles,  or  that  these  disposi- 
tions may  be  the  general  habit  of  the  mind,  and  may  both 
precede  and  follow  the  acts  of  war ;  I  answer  that  this  is  to 
grant  all  that  I  require,  since  it  grants  that  when  we  engage 
in  war,  we  abandon  Christianity. 

When  the  betrayers  and  murderers  of  Jesus  Christ  ap- 
proached him,  his  followers  asked  "  Shall  we  smite  with  the 
sword  ?"  And  without  waiting  for  an  answer,  one  of  them 
drew  "  his  sword,  and  smote  the  servant  of  the  High  Priest, 
and  cut  off  his  right  ear." — "  Put  up  thy  sword  again  into  its 
place,"  said  his  Divine  Master,  "  for  all  they  that  take  the 
sword,  shall  perish  with  the  sword."*  There  is  the  greater 
importance  in  the  circumstances  of  this  command,  because 
it  prohibited  the  destruction  of  human  life  in  a  cause  in  which 
there  were  the  best  of  possible  reasons  for  destroying  it. 
The  question  "  shall  we  smite  with  the  sword,"  obviously 
refers  to  the  defence  of  the  Redeemer  from  his  assailants,  by 
force  of  arms.  His  followers  were  ready  to  fight  for  him  ; 
and  if  any  reason  for  righting  could  be  a  good  one,  they  cer- 
tainly had  it.  But  if,  in  defence  of  Himself  from  the  hands 
of  bloody  ruffians,  his  religion  did  not  allow  the  sword  to  be 
drawn,  for  what  reason  can  it  be  lawful  to  draw  it  ?  The 
advocates  of  war  are  at  least  bound  to  show  a  better  reason 
for  destroying  mankind,  than  is  contained  in  this  instance  in 
which  it  was  forbidden. 

It  will,  perhaps,  be  said,  that  the  reason  why  Christ  did 
not  suffer  himself  to  be  defended  by  arms,  was,  that  such  a 
defence  would  have  defeated  the  purpose  for  which  he  came 
into  the  world,  namely,  to  offer  up  his  life ;  and  that  he  him- 
self assigns  this  reason  in  the  context.*)- — He  does  indeed  as- 
sign it ;  but  the  primary  reason,  the  immediate  context  is — 
"  for  all  they  that  take  the  sword,  shall  perish  with  the 
sword."  The  reference  to  the  destined  sacrifice  of  his  life 
is  an  after-reference.  This  destined  sacrifice  might,  perhaps, 
have  formed  a  reason  why  his  followers  should  not  fight 
then,  but  the  first,  the  principal  reason  which  he  assigned, 
was  a  reason  why  they  should  not  fight  at  all. — Nor  is  it 
necessary  to  define  the  precise  import  of  the  words  "  for  all 

*  Matt.  xxvi.  51,  52.  f  Note  L» 


49 

they  that  take  the  sword  shall  perish  with  the  sword :"  since 
it  is  sufficient  for  us  all,  that  they  imply  reprobation. 

To  the  declaration  which  was  made  by  Jesus  Christ,  in 
the  conversation  that  took  place  between  himself  and  Pilate, 
after  he  had  been  seized  by  the  Jews,  I  would  peculiarly  in- 
vite the  attention  of  the  reader.  The  declaration  refers  spe- 
cifically to  an  armed  conflict,  and  to  a  conflict  between  num- 
bers. In  allusion  to  the  capability  of  his  followers  to  have 
defended  his  person,  he  says,  "  My  kingdom  is  not  of  this 
world ;  if  my  kingdom  were  of  this  world,  then  would  my 
servants  fight,  that  I  should  not  be  delivered  to  the  Jews : 
but  now  is  my  kingdom  not  from  hence."*  He  had  before 
forbidden  his  "servants"  to  fight  in  his  defence,  and  now,  be- 
fore Pilate,  he  assigns  the  reason  for  it :  "  My  kingdom  is 
not  of  this  world."  This  is  the  very  reason  which  we  are 
urging  against  war.  We  say  that  it  is  incompatible  with 
his  kingdom — with  the  state  which  he  came  into  the  world 
to  introduce.  The  incompatibility  of  war  with  Christianity, 
is  yet  more  forcibly  evinced  by  the  contrast  which  Christ 
makes  between  His  kingdom  and  others.  It  is  the  ordinary 
practice  in  the,  world  for  subjects  to  "  fight,"  and  His  sub- 
jects would  have  fought  if  his  kingdom  had  been  of  this 
world;  but  since  it  was  not  of  this  world, — since  its  nature 
was  purer  and  its  obligations  more  pacific — therefore  they 
might  not  fight. 

His  declaration  referred,  not  to  the  act  of  a  single  indivi- 
dual who  might  draw  his  sword  in  individual  passion,  but  to 
an  armed  engagement  between  hostile  parties  ;  to  a  conflict 
for  an  important  object,  which  one  party  had  previously  re- 
solved on  attaining,  and  which  the  other  were  ready  to  have 
prevented  them  from  attaining,  with  the  sword.  It  refers, 
therefore,  strictly  to  a  conflict  between  armed  numbers ;  and 
to  a  conflict  which,  it  should  be  remembered,  was  in  a  much 
better  cause  than  any  to  which  we  can  now  pretend.f 

It  is  with  the  apostles  as  with  Christ  himself.     The  in- 

*  John  xviii.  36. 

f  In  the  publication  to  which  the  note,  page  41  refers,  the 
Author  informs  us  that  the  reason  why  Christ  forbade  his  followers 
to  fight  in  his  defence,  was,  that  it  would  have  been  to  oppose  the 
government  of  the  country. — I  am  glad  no  better  evasion  can  be 
found  ;  and  this  would  not  have  been  found,  if  the  author  had  con- 
sulted the  reason  assigned  by  the  Prohibitor,  before  he  promul- 
gated his  own. 

E 


50 

cessant  object  of  their  discourses  and  writings  is  the  inculca- 
tion of  peace,  of  mildness,  of  placability.  It  might  be  sup- 
posed that  they  continually  retained  in  prospect  the  reward 
which  would  attach  to  "  Peace-makers."  We  ask  the  ad- 
vocate of  war,  whether  he  discovers  in  the  writings  of  the 
Apostles  or  of  the  Evangelists,  any  thing  that  indicates  they 
approved  of  war.  Do  the  tenor  and  spirit  of  their  writings 
bear  any  congruity  with  it  ?  Are  not  their  spirit  and  tenor 
entirely  discordant  with  it  ?  We  are  entitled  to  renew  the 
observation,  that  the  pacific  nature  of  the  apostolic  writings 
proves  presumptively,  that  the  writers  disallowed  war.  That 
could  not  be  allowed  by  them  as  sanctioned  by  Christianity, 
which  outraged  all  the  principles  that  they  inculcated. 

"  Whence  come  wars  and  fightings  amongst  you  ?"  is  the 
interrogation  of  one  of  the  apostles,  to  some  whom  he  was 
reproving  for  their  unchristian  conduct.  And  he  answers 
himself  by  asking  them,  "  Come  they  not  hence,  even  of 
your  lusts  that  war  in  your  members  ?"■*  This  accords  pre- 
cisely with  the  argument  that  we  urge.  Christ  forbade  the 
passions  which  lead  to  war ;  and  now,  when  these  passions 
had  broken  out  into  actual  fighting,  his  apostle,  in  condemn- 
ing war,  refers  it  back  to  their  passions.  We  have  been  say- 
ing that  the  passions  are  condemned  and  therefore  war;  and 
now,  again,  the  apostle  James  thinks,  like  his  master,  that 
the  most  effectual  way  of  eradicating  war,  is  to  eradicate  the 
passions  which  produce  it. 

In  the  following  quotation  we  are  told,  not  only  what  the 
arms  of  the  apostles  were  not,  but  what  they  were.  "  The 
weapons  of  our  warfare  are  not  carnal,  but  mighty,  through 
God,  to  the  pulling  down  of  strong  holds,  and  bringing  into 
captivity  every  thought  to  the  obedience  of  Christ."-\  I  quote 
this,  not  only  because  it  assures  us  that  the  apostles  had  no- 
thing to  do  with  military  weapons,  but  because  it  tells  us  the 
object  of  their  warfare- — the  bringing  every  thought  to  the 
obedience  of  Christ :  and  this  object  I  would  beg  the  reader 
to  notice,  because  it  accords  with  the  object  of  Christ  himself 
in  his  precepts  from  the  mount— the  reduction  of  the  thoughts 
to  obedience.  The  apostle  doubtless  knew  that  if  he  could 
effect  this,  there  was  little  reason  to  fear  that  his  converts 
would  slaughter  one  another.  He  followed  the  example  of 
his  master.     He  attacked  wickedness  in  its  root ;  and  incul- 

*  James  iv.  1.  f  2  Cor.  v.  4. 


51 

cated  those  general  principles  of  purity  and  forbearance, 
which,  in  their  prevalence,  would  abolish  war,  as  they  would 
abolish  all  other  crimes.  The  teachers  of  Christianity  ad- 
dressed themselves  not  to  communities  but  men.  They  en- 
forced the  regulation  of  the  passions  and  the  rectification  of 
the  heart:  and  it  was  probably  clear  to  the  perceptions  of 
apostles,  although  it  is  not  clear  to  some  species  of  philosophy, 
that  whatever  duties  were  binding  upon  one  man,  were  bind- 
ing upon  ten,  upon  a  hundred,  and  upon  the  state. 

War  is  not  often  directly  noticed  in  the  writings  of  the 
apostles.  When  it  is  noticed,  it  is  condemned  just  in  that 
way  in  which  we  should  suppose  any  thing  would  be  con- 
demned, that  was  notoriously  opposed  to  the  whole  system 
— just  as  murder  is  condemned  at  the  present  day.  Who  can 
find,  in  modern  books,  that  murder  is  formerly  censured  ? 
We  may  find  censures  of  its  motives,  of  its  circumstances,  of 
its  degrees  of  atrocity ;  but  the  act  itself  no  one  thinks  of  cen- 
suring, because  every  one  knows  that  it  is  wicked.  Setting 
statutes  aside,  I  doubt  whether,  if  an  Otaheitan  should  choose  to 
argue  that  Christians  allow  murder  because  he  cannot  find  it 
formally  prohibited  in  their  writings,  we  should  not  be  at  a  loss 
to  find  direct  evidence  against  him.  And  it  arises,  perhaps, 
from  the  same  causes,  that  a  formal  prohibition  of  war  is  not 
to  be  found  in  the  writings  of  the  apostles.  I  do  not  believe 
they  imagined  that  Christianity  would  ever  be  charged  with 
allowing  it.  They  write,  as  if  the  idea  of  such  a  charge 
never  occurred  to  them.  They  did,  nevertheless,  virtually 
forbid  it ;  unless  any  one  shall  say  that  they  disallowed  the 
passions  which  occasion  war,  but  did  not  disallow  war  itself; 
that  Christianity  prohibits  the  cause  but  permits  the  effect; 
which  is  much  the  same  as  to  say  that  a  law  which  forbade 
the  administering  of  arsenic,  did  not  forbid  poisoning. — And 
this  sort  of  reasoning,  strange  and  illogical  as  it  is,  we  shall 
by  and  by  find  has  been  gravely  adopted  against  us. 

But  although  the  general  tenor  of  Christianity,  and  many 
of  its  direct  precepts,  appear  to  me  to  condemn  and  disallow 
war,  it  is  certain  that  different  conclusions  have  been  formed ; 
and  many,  who  are  undoubtedly  desirous  of  performing  the 
duties  of  Christianity,  have  failed  to  perceive  that  war  is  un- 
lawful to  them. 

In  examining  the  arguments  by  which  war  is  defended, 
two  important  considerations  should  be  borne  in  mind — first, 
that  those  who  urge  them,  are  not  simply  defending  war, 


52 

they  are  also  defending  themselves.  If  war  be  wrong,  their 
conduct  is  wrong ;  and  the  desire  of  self  justification,  prompts 
them  to  give  importance  to  whatever  arguments  they  can  ad- 
vance in  its  favour.  Their  decisions  may  therefore,  with 
reason,  be  regarded  as  in  some  degree  the  decisions  of  a  party 
in  the  cause.  The  other  consideration  is,  that  the  defenders 
of  war  come  to  the  discussion  prepossessed  in  its  favour. 
They  are  attached  to  it  by  their  earliest  habits.  They  do  not 
examine  the  question  as  a  philosopher  would  examine  it,  to 
whom  the  subject  was  new.  Their  opinions  had  been  already 
formed."  They  are  discussing  a  question  which  they  had 
already  determined.  And  every  man,  who  is  acquainted 
with  the  effects  of  evidence  on  the  mind,  knows,  that  under 
these  circumstances,  a  very  slender  argument  in  favour  of 
the  previous  opinions,  possesses  more  influence  than  many 
great  ones  against  it.  Now  all  this  cannot  be  predicated  of 
the  advocates  of  peace ;  they  are  opposing  the  influence  of 
habit — they  are  contending  against  the  general  prejudice — 
they  are,  perhaps,  dismissing  their  own  previous  opinions. 
And  I  would  submit  it  to  the  candour  of  the  reader,  that  these 
circumstances  ought  to  attach  in  his  mind,  suspicion  to  the 
validity  of  the  arguments  against  us. 

The  narrative  of  the  Centurion  who  came  to  Jesus  at  Ca- 
pernaum, to  solicit  him  to  heal  his  servant,  furnishes  one  of 
these  arguments.  It  is  said  that  Christ  found  no  fault  with 
the  centurion's  profession ;  that  if  he  had  disallowed  the  mili- 
tary character,  he  would  have  taken  this  opportunity  of 
censuring  it  ;*  and  that  instead  of  such  censure,  he  highly 
commended  the  officer,  and  said  of  him,  "  I  have  not  found 
so  great  faith,  no,  not  in  Israel."f 

An  obvious  weakness  in  this  argument  is  this  ;  that  it  is 
founded,  not  upon  approval,  but  upon  silence.  Approbation 
is  indeed  expressed,  but  it  is  directed,  not  to  his  arms,  but  to 
his  faith ;  and  those  who  will  read  the  narrative  will  find  that 
no  occasion  was  given  for  noticing  his  profession.  He  came 
to  Christ,  not  as  a  military  officer,  but  simply  as  a  deserving 
man.  A  censure  of  his  profession  might,  undoubtedly,  have 
been  pronounced,  but  it  would  have  been  a  gratuitous  cen- 
sure, a  censure  that  did  not  naturally  arise  out  of  the  case. 
The  objection  is  in  its  greatest  weight  presumptive  only,  for 
none  can  be  supposed  to  countenance  every  thing  that  he 

*  Note  M.  -j-  Matt.  viii.  10. 


53 

does  not  condemn.  To  observe  silence*  in  such  cases,  was, 
indeed,  the  ordinary  practice  of  Christ.  He  very  seldom 
interfered  with  the  civil  and  political  institutions  of  the  world. 
In  these  institutions  there  was  sufficient  wickedness  around 
him,  but  some  of  them,  flagitious  as  they  were,  he  never, 
on  any  occasion,  even  noticed.  His  mode  of  condemning 
and  extirpating  political  vices  was  by  the  inculcation  of  gene- 
ral rules  of  purity,  which,  in  their  eventful  and  universal  ap- 
plication, would  reform  them  all. 

But  how  happens  it  that  Christ  did  not  notice  the  Centu- 
rion's religion  ?  He  surely  was  an  idolater.  And  is  there 
not  as  good  reason  for  maintaining  that  Christ  approved 
idolatry,  because  he  did  not  condemn  it,  as  that  he  approv- 
ed war  because  he  did  not  condemn  it?  Reasoning  from 
analogy,  we  should  conclude  that  idolatry  was  likely  to  have 
been  noticed  rather  than  war ;  and  it  is  therefore  peculiarly 
and  singularly  unapt  to  bring  forward  the  silence  respecting 
war,  as  an  evidence  of  its  lawfulness. 

A  similar  argument  is  advanced  from  the  case  of  Corne- 
lius, to  whom  Peter  was  sent  from  Joppa ;  of  which  it  is  said, 
that  although  the  gospel  was  imparted  to  Cornelius  by  the 
especial  direction  of  Heaven,  yet  we  do  not  find  that  he  there- 
fore quitted  his  profession,  or  that  it  was  considered  incon- 
sistent with  his  new  character.  The  objection  applies  to  this 
argument  as  to  the  last,  that  it  is  built  upon  silence,  that  it  is 
simply  negative.  We  do  not  find  that  he  quitted  the  service  : 
— I  might  answer,  Neither  do  we  find  that  he  continued  in 
it.  We  only  know  nothing  of  the  matter :  and  the  evidence 
is  therefore  so  much  less  than  proof,  as  silence  is  less  than 
approbation.  Yet,  that  the  account  is  silent  respecting  any 
disapprobation  of  war,  might  have  been  a  reasonable  ground 
of  argument  under  different  circumstances.  It  might  have 
been  a  reasonable  ground  of  argument,  if  the  primary  object 
of  Christianity  had  been  the  reformation  of  political  institu- 
tions, or  perhaps,  even  if  her  primary  object  had  been  the 
regulation  of  the  external  conduct ;  but  her  primary  object 
was  neither  of  these.  She  directed  herself  to  the  reformation 
of  the  heart,  knowing  that  all  other  reformation  would  follow 
She  embraced  indeed  both  morality  and  policy,  and  has  re- 
formed, or  will  reform  both — not  so  much  immediately  as 
consequently  ;  not  so  much  by  filtering  the  current,  as  by 

*  See  a  future  quotation  from  the  «  Moral  and  Political  Philo- 
sophy." 

e  2 


54 

purifying  the  spring.  The  silence  of  Peter,  therefore,  in  the 
case  of  Cornelius,  will  serve  the  cause  of  war  but  little  ;*  that 
little  is  diminished  when  urged  against  the  positive  evidence 
of  commands  and  prohibitions,  and  it  is  reduced  to  nothing- 
ness, when  it  is  opposed  to  the  universal  tendency  and  object 
of  the  revelation. 

It  has  sometimes  been  urged  that  Christ  paid  taxes  to  the 
Roman  government  at  a  time  when  it  was  engaged  in  war, 
and  when,  therefore,  the  money  that  he  paid,  would  be  em- 
ployed in  its  prosecution.  This  we  shall  readily  grant ;  but 
it  appears  to  be  forgotten  by  our  opponents  that  if  this  proves 
war  to  be  lawful,  they  are  proving  too  much.  These  taxes 
were  thrown  into  the  exchequer  of  the  state,  and  a  part  of 
the  jnoney  was  applied  to  purposes  of  a  most  iniquitous  arid 
shocking  nature ;  sometimes,  probably,  to  the  gratification  of 
the  emperor's  personal  vices  and  to  his  gladiatorial  exhibi- 
tions, &c,  and  certainly  to  the  support  of  a  miserable  idola- 
try. If,  therefore,  the  payment  of  taxes  to  such  a  govern- 
ment proves  an  approbation  of  war,  it  proves  an  approbation 
of  many  other  enormities.  Moreover,  the  argument  goes 
too  far  in  relation  even  to  war  ;  for  it  must  necessarily  make 
Christ  approve  of  ail  the  Roman  wars,  without  distinction  of 
their  justice  or  injustice — of  the  most  ambitious,  the  most 
atrocious,  and  the  most  aggressive :  and  these,  even  our  ob- 
jectors will  not  defend.  The  payment  of  tribute  by  our  Lord, 
was  accordant  with  his  usual  system  of  avoiding  to  interfere 
in  the  civil  or  political  institutions  of  the  world. 

"  Let  him  that  has  no  sword,  sell  his  garment  and  buy 
one."f — This  is  another  passage  that  is  brought  against  us.£ 
— "  For  what  purpose,"  it  is  asked,  "  were  they  to  buy 
swords,  if  swords  might  not  be  used  ?"  I  doubt  whether  with 
some  of  those  who  advanced  this  objection,  it  is  not  an  ob- 
jection of  words  rather  than  of  opinion.  I  doubt  whether 
they  themselves  think  there  is  any  weight  in  it.  To  those, 
however,  who  may  be  influenced  by  it,  I  would  observe,  that, 
as  it  appears  to  me,  a  sufficient  answer  to  the  objection  may 
be  found  in  the  immediate  context : — "  Lord,  behold  here  are 
two  swords,"  said  they ;  and  he  immediately  answered,  "It 
is  enough."  How  could  two  be  enough  when  eleven  were 
to  be  supplied  with  them  ?  That  swords,  in  the  sense,  and 
for  the  purpose  of  military  weapons,  were  even  intended 

*  Note  N.  f  Luke  xxii.  36.  *  Note  O. 


55 

in  this  passage,  there  appears  much  reason  for  doubting. 
This  reason  will  be  discovered  by  examining  and  connecting 
such  expressions  as  these :  "The  Son  of  Man  is  not  come  to 
destroy  men's  lives,  but  to  save  them,"  said  our  Lord.  Yet, 
on  another  occasion,  he  says,  "  I  came  not  to  send  peace  on 
earth  but  a  sword.''''  How  are  we  to  explain  the  meaning 
of  the  latter  declaration?  Obviously  by  understanding 
"  sword"  to  mean  something  far  other  than  steel.  For  my- 
self, I  see  little  reason  for  supposing  that  physical  weapons 
were  intended  in  the  instruction  of  Christ.  I  believe  they 
were  not  intended,  partly  because  no  one  can  imagine  his 
apostles  were  in  the  habit  of  using  such  arms,  partly  because 
they  declared  that  the  weapons  of  their  warfare  were  not 
carnal,  and  partly  because  the  word  "  sword"  is  often  used 
to  imply  "  dissension,"  or  the  religious  warfare  of  the  Chris- 
tian. Such  an  use  of  language  is  found  in  the  last  quotation ; 
and  it  is  found  also  in  such  expressions  as  these :  "  shield 
of  faith" — "  helmet  of  salvation" — "  sword  of  the  spirit" — 
"  I  have  fought  the  good  fight  of  faith." 

But  it  will  be  said  that  the  apostles  did  provide  themselves 
with  swords,  for  that  on  the  same  evening  they  asked, 
"  shall  we  smite  with  the  sword  ?"  This  is  true,  and  I  think 
it  may  probably  be  true  also,  that  some  of  them  provided 
themselves  with  swords  in  consequence  of  the  injunction  of 
their  Master.  But  what  then?  The  reader  of  the  New 
Testament  will  find  that  hitherto  the  destined  teachers  of 
Christianity  were  very  imperfectly  acquainted  with  the  nature 
of  their  master's  religion — their  conceptions  of  it  were  yet 
gross  and  Jewish.  The  very  question  that  is  brought 
against  us,  and  the  succeeding  conduct  of  Peter,  evince  how 
little  they  yet  knewJhat  His  kingdom  was  not  of  this  world, 
and  that  his  servants  might  not  fight.  Even  after  the  resur- 
rection, they  seemed  to  be  still  expecting  that  his  purpose 
was  to  establish  a  temporal  government,  by  the  inquiry — 
"  Lord,  wilt  thou  at  this  time,  restore  again  the  kingdom  unto 
Israel  ?"*  Why  do  we  avail  ourselves  of  the  conduct  of 
the  apostles,  before  they  themselves  knew  the  duties  of  Chris- 
tianity ?  Why,  if  this  example  of  Peter  be  authority  to  us, 
do  we  not  approve  the  subsequent  example  of  this  same 
apostle,  in  denying  his  master? 

Why,  indeed,  do  we  urge  the  conduct  of  Peter  at  all, 

*  Acts  i.  6. 


56 

when  that  conduct  was  immediately  condemned  by  Christ  ? 
And,  had  it  not  been  condemned,  how  happens  it,  that  if  he 
allowed  his  followers  the  use  of  arms,  he  healed  the  only 
wound  which  we  find  they  ever  inflicted  with  them  ? 

It  appears  to  me,  that  the  apostles  acted  on  this  occasion 
upon  the  principles  on  which  they  had  wished  to  act  on  ano- 
ther, when  they  asked,  "  Shall  we  command  fire  to  come 
down  from  heaven  to  consume  them  V.  And  that  their 
Master's  principles  of  action  were  also  the  same  in  both. — 
"  Ye  know  not  what  manner  of  spirit  ye  are  of;  for  the  Son 
of  Man  is  not  come  to  destroy  men's  lives,  but  to  save 
them."  This  is  the  language  of  Christianity ;  and  I  would 
seriously  invite  him  who  now  justifies  "  destroying  men's 
Jives,"  to  consider  what  manner  of  spirit  he  is  of. 

I  think,  then,  that  no  argument  arising  from  the  instruc- 
tion to  buy  swords  can  be  maintained.  This,  at  least,  we 
know,  that  when  the  apostles  were  completely  commissioned, 
they  neither  used  nor  possessed  them.  An  extraordinary 
imagination  he  must  have,  who  conceives  of  an  apostle, 
preaching  peace  and  reconciliation,  crying  "  forgive  inju- 
ries"—" love  your  enemies" — "  render  not  evil  for  evil;"  and 
at  the  conclusion  of  the  discourse,  if  he  chanced  to  meet  with 
violence  or  insult,  promptly  drawing  his  sword  and  maiming 
or  murdering  the  offender.  We  insist  upon  this  considera- 
tion. If  swords  were  to  be  worn,  swords  were  to  be  used  ; 
and  there  is  no  rational  way  in  which  they  could  have  been 
used,  but  some  such  as  that  which  we  have  been  supposing. 
If,  therefore,  the  words  "  Let  him  that  has  no  sword  sell  his 
garment  and  buy  one,"  do  not  mean  to  authorize  such  an 
use  of  the  sword,  they  do  not  mean  to  authorize  its  use  at 
all :  And  those  who  adduce  the  passage,  must  allow  its  ap- 
plication in  such  a  sense,  or  they  must  exclude  it  from  any 
application  to  their  purpose. 

It  has  been  said,  again,  that  when  soldiers  came  to  John 
the  Baptist  to  inquire  of  him  what  they  should  do,  he  did 
not  direct  them  to  leave  the  service,  but  to  be  content  with 
their  wages.*  This,  also,  is  at  best  but  a  negative  evidence. 
It  does  not  prove  that  the  military  profession  was  wrong,  and 
it  certainly  does  not  prove  that  it  was  right.  But  in  truth, 
if  it  asserted  the  latter,  Christians  have,  as  I  conceive,  noth- 
ing to  do  with  it ;  for  I  think  that  we  need  not  inquire  what 

*  Note  P. 


57 

John  allowed,  or  what  he  forbade.  He,  confessedly,  belong- 
ed to  that  system  which  required  "  an  eye  for  an  eye,  and 
a  tooth  for  a  tooth ;"  and  the  observations  which  we  shall  by 
and  by  make  on  the  authority  of  the  law  of  Moses,  apply 
therefore,  to  that  of  John  the  Baptist.  Although  it  could  be 
proved,  (which  it  cannot  be,)  that  he  allowed  wars,  he  acted 
not  inconsistently  with  his  own  dispensation;  and  with  that 
dispensation  we  have  no  business.  Yet,  if  any  one  still  in- 
sists upon  the  authority  of  John,  I  would  refer  him  for  an  an- 
swer to  Jesus  Christ  himself.  What  authority  He  attached 
to  John  on  questions  relating  to  his  own  dispensation,  may 
be  learnt  from  this — "  The  least  in  the  kingdom  of  heaven 
is  greater  than  he." 

Such  are  the  arguments  which  are  adduced  from  the 
Christian  Scriptures,  by  the  advocates  of  war.  Of  these 
arguments,  those  derived  from  the  cases  of  the  Centurion  and 
of  Gornelius,  are  simply  negative.  It  is  not  pretended  that 
they  possess  proof.  Their  strength  consists  in  silence,  and 
of  this  silence  there  appears  to  be  sufficient  explanation.  Of 
the  objection  arising  from  the  payment  of  tribute,  I  know 
not  who  will  avail  himself.  It  is  nullified  by  itself.  A 
nearly  similar  observation  applies  to  the  instruction  to  buy 
swords;  and  with  the  case  of  John  the  Baptist  I  do  not  con- 
ceive that  we  have  any  concern.  In  these  five  passages,  the 
sum  of  the  New  Testament  evidences  in  favour  of  war,  un- 
questionably consists  :  they  are  the  passages  which  men  of 
acute  minds,  studiously  seeking  for  evidence,  have  selected. 
And  what  are  they  1  There  is  not  one  of  them,  except  the 
payment  of  tribute  and  the  instruction  to  buy  swords,  of 
which  it  is  even  said  by  our  opponents,  that  it  proves  any 
thing  in  favour  of  war.  A  "  not"  always  intervenes — the 
Centurion  was  not  found  fault  with  :  Cornelius  was  not  told 
to  leave  the  profession:  John  did  not  tell  the  soldiers  to 
abandon  the  army.  I  cannot  forbear  to  solicit  the  reader  to 
compare  these  objections  with  the  pacific  evidence  of  the 
gospel  which  has  been  laid  before  him ;  I  would  rather  say, 
to  compare  it  with  the  gospel  itself;  for  the  sum,  the  ten- 
dency of  the  whole  revelation  is  in  our  favour. 

In  an  inquiry  whether  Christianity  allows  of  war,  there  is 
a  subject  that  always  appears  to  me  to  be  of  peculiar  import- 
ance— the  Prophecies  of  the  Old  Testament  respecting  the 
arrival  of  a  period  of  universal  peace.  The  belief  is  per- 
haps general  amongst  Christians,  that  a  time  will  come  when 


58 

vice  shall  be  eradicated  from  the  world,  when  the  violent  pas- 
sions of  mankind  shall  be  repressed,  and  when  the  pure  be- 
nignity of  Christianity  shall  be  universally  diffused.  That 
such  a  period  will  come  we  indeed  know  assuredly,  for  God 
has  promised  it. 

Of  the  many  prophecies  of  the  Old  Testament  respecting 
it,  I  will  refer  only  to  a  few  from  the  writings  of  Isaiah.  In 
his  predictions  respecting  the  "  last  times,"  by  which  it  is 
not  disputed  that  he  referred  to  the  prevalence  of  the  Christian 
religion,  the  prophet  says — "  They  shall  beat  their  swords 
into  ploughshares,  and  their  spears  into  pruning-hooks ;  na- 
tion shall  not  lift  the  sword  against  nation,  neither  shall  they 
learn  war  any  more."*  Again,  referring  to  the  same  period, 
he  says-^"  They  shall  not  hurt  nor  destroy  in  all  my  holy 
mountain,  for  the  knowledge  of  the  Lord  shall  cover  the 
earth  as  the  waters  cover  the  sea."f  And  again,  respecting 
the  same  era — "  Violence  shall  be  no  more  heard  in  thy 
land,  wasting  nor  destruction  within  thy  borders.":): 

Two  things  are  to  be  observed  in  relation  to  these  prophe- 
cies :  first,  that  it  is  the  will  of  God  that  war  should  eventu- 
ally be  abolished.  This  consideration  is  of  importance,  for 
if  war  be  not  accordant  with  His  will,  war  cannot  be  accor- 
dant with  Christianity,  which  is  the  revelation  of  His  will. 
My  business,  however,  is  principally  with  the  second  consi- 
deration— that  Christianity  will  be  the  means  of  introducing 
this  period  of  Peace.  From  those  who  say  that  our  religion 
sanctions  war,  an  answer  must  be  expected  to  questions  such 
as  these : — By  what  instrumentality  and  by  the  diffusion  of 
what  principles,  will  the  prophecies  of  Isaiah  be  fulfilled  ? 
Are  we  to  expect  some  new  system  of  religion,  by  which  the 
imperfections  of  Christianity  shall  be  removed,  and  its  defi- 
ciencies supplied?  Are  we  to  believe  that  God  sent  his  only 
Son  into  the  world  to  institute  a  religion  such  as  this — a  reli- 
gion, that  in  a  few  centuries,  would  require  to  be  altered  and 
amended?  If  Christianity  allows  of  war,  they  must  tell  us 
what  it  is  that  is  to  extirpate  war.  If  she  allows  "  violence 
and  wasting,  and  destruction,"  they  must  tell  us  what  are  the 
principles  that  are  to  produce  gentleness,  and  benevolence, 
and  forbearance. — I  know  not  what  answer  such  inquiries 
will  receive  from  the  advocate  of  war,  but  I  know  that  Isaiah 
says  the  change  will  be  effected  by  Christianity :     And  if 

*  Isaiah  ii.  4  f  lb.  xi.  9.  *  lb.  lx.  18. 


59 

any  one  still  chooses  to  expect  another  and  a  purer  system, 
an  apostle  may  perhaps  repress  his  hopes  : — H  If  we,  or  an 
angel  from  heaven,"  says  Paul,  "  preach  any  other  gospel 
than  that  which  we  have  preached  unto  you,  let  him  be 
accursed."* 

Whatever  the  principles  of  Christianity  will  require  here- 
after, they  require  now.  Christianity,  with  its  present  prin- 
ciples and  obligations^  is  to  produce  universal  peace.  It 
becomes,  therefore,  an  absurdity,  a  simple  contradiction,  to 
maintain  that  the  principles  of  Christianity  allow  of  war,  when 
they  and  they  only,  are  to  eradicate  it.  If  we  have  no  other 
guarantee  of  Peace,  than  the  existence  of  our  religion,  and 
no  other  hope  of  Peace,  than  in  its  diffusion,  how  can  that 
religion  sanction  war?  The  conclusion  that  it  does  not 
sanction  it,  appears  strictly  logical :  I  do  not  perceive  that  a 
demonstration  from  Euclid  can  be  clearer ;  and  I  think  that 
if  we  possessed  no  other  evidence  of  the  unlawfulness  of  war, 
there  is  contained  in  this,  a  proof  which  prejudice  cannot 
deny,  and  which  sophistry  cannot  evade. 

The  case  is  clear.  A  more  perfect  obedience  to  that  same 
gospel,  which  we  are  told  sanctions  slaughter,  will  be  the 
means,  and  the  only  means,  of  exterminating  slaughter  from 
the  world.  It  is  not  from  an  alteration  of  Christianity,  but 
from  an  assimilation  of  Christians  to  its  nature,  that  we  are 
to  hope.  It  is  because  we  violate  the  principles  of  our  reli- 
gion, because  we  are  not  what  they  require  us  to  be,  that 
wars  are  continued.  If  we  will  not  be  peaceable,  let  us  then, 
at  least,  be  honest,  and  acknowledge  that  we  continue  to 
slaughter  one  another,  not  because  Christianity  permits  it, 
but  because  we  reject  her  laws.f 

The  Christian  ought  to  be  satisfied  on  questions  connected 
with  his  duties,  by  the  simple  rules  of  his  religion.  If  those 
rules  disallow  war,  he  should  inquire  no  farther;  but  since  I 
am  willing  to  give  conviction  to  the  reader  by  whatever 
means,  and  since  truth  carries  its  evidence  with  greater  force 
from  accumulated  testimony,  I  would  refer  to  two  or  three 
other  subjects  in  illustration  of  our  principles,  or  in  confirma- 
tion of  their  truth. 

The  opinions  of  the  earliest  professors  of  Christianity  upon 
the  lawfulness  of  war,  are  of  importance ;  because  they  who 
lived  nearest  to  the  time  of  its  Founder,  were  the  most  likely 

*  Gal.  i.  8.  f  Note  Q. 


60 

to  be  informed  of  his  intentions  and  his  will,  and  to  practise 
them  without  those  adulterations  which  we  know  have  been 
introduced  by  the  lapse  of  ages. 

During  a  considerable  period  after  the  death  of  Christ,  it 
is  certain,  then,  that  his  followers  believed  he  had  forbidden 
war,  and  that,  in  consequence  of  this  belief,  many  of  them 
refused  to  engage  in  it  whatever  were  the  consequences, 
whether  reproach,  or  imprisonment,  or  death.  These  facts 
are  indisputable :  "  It  is  as  easy,"  says  a  learned  writer  of 
the  seventeenth  century,  "  to  obscure  the  sun  at  mid-day  as 
to  deny  that  the  primitive  Christians  renounced  all  revenge 
and  war."  Of  all  the  Christian  writers  of  the  second  cen- 
tury, there  is  not  one  who  notices  the  subject,  who  does  not 
hold  it  to  be  unlawful  for  a  Christian  to  bear  arms ;  "  and," 
says  Clarkson,  "it  was  not  till  Christianity  became  corrupted 
that  Christians  became  soldiers."* 

Our  Saviour  inculcated  mildness  and  peaceableness ;  we 
have  seen  that  the  apostles  imbibed  his  spirit,  and  followed 
his  example ;  and  the  early  Christians  pursued  the  example 
and  imbibed  the  spirit  of  both.  "  This  sacred  principle,  this 
earnest  recommendation  of  forbearance,  lenity,  and  forgive- 
ness, mixes  with  all  the  writings  of  that  age.  There  are 
more  quotations  in  the  apostolical  fathers,  of  texts  which  re- 
late to  these  points  than  of  any  other.  Christ's  sayings  had 
struck  them.  "  Not  rendering,  says  Polycarp  the  disciple  of 
John,  evil  for  evil,  or  railing  for  railing,  or  striking  for 
striking,  or  cursing  for  cursing."^  Christ  and  his  apostles 
delivered  general  precepts  for  the  regulation  of  our  conduct. 
It  was  necessary  for  their  successors  to  apply  them  to  their 
practice  in  life.  And  to  what  did  they  apply  the  pacific  pre- 
cepts which  had  been  delivered'?  They  applied  them  to 
war :  they  were  assured  that  the  precepts  absolutely  forbade 
it.  This  belief  they  derived  from  those  very  precepts  on 
which  we  have  insisted:  They  referred,  expressly,  to  the 
same  passages  in  the  New  Testament,  and  from  the 
authority  and  obligation  of  those  passages,  they  refused  to 
bear  arms.  A  few  examples  from  their  history,  will  show 
with  what  undoubting  confidence  they  believed  in  the  unlaw- 

*  "  Essay  on  the  Doctrines  and  Practice  of  the  Early  Chris- 
tians as  they  relate  to  war."  To  this  Essay  I  am  indebted  for 
much  information  on  the  present  part  of  our  subject. 

t  Pol.  Ep.  ad  Phil.  C.  2. — Evidences  of  Christianity. 


61 

fulness  of  war,  and  how  much  they  were  willing  to  suffer  in 
the  cause  of  peace. 

Maximilian,  as  it  is  related  in  the  Acts  of  Ruinart,  was 
brought  before  the  tribunal  to  be  enrolled  as  a  soldier.  On 
the  proconsul's  asking  his  name,  Maximilian  replied,  "lam 
a  Christian  and  cannot  fight."  It  was  however  ordered  that 
he  should  be  enrolled,  but  he  refused  to  serve,  still  alleging 
that  he  was  a  Christian,  He  was  immediately  told  that 
there  was  no  alternative  between  bearing  arms,  and  being  put 
to  death.  But  his  fidelity  was  not  to  be  shaken — "  I  cannot 
fight,"  said  he,  "  if  I  die."  The  procounsul  asked  who  had 
persuaded  him  to  this  conduct;  "My  own  mind,"  said  the 
Christian,  "  and  he  who  has  called  me."  It  was  once  more 
attempted  to  shake  his  resolution  by  appealing  to  his  youth 
and  to  the  glory  of  the  profession,  but  in  vain ; — "  I  cannot 
fight,"  said  he,  "  for  any  earthly  consideration."  He  con- 
tinued steadfast  to  his  principles,  sentence  was  pronounced 
upon  him,  and  he  was  led  to  execution. 

The  primitive  Christians  not  only  refused  to  be  enlisted  in 
the  army,  but  when  they  embraced  Christianity  whilst  already 
enlisted,  they  abandoned  the  profession  at  whatever  cost. 
Marcellus  was  a  centurion  in  the  legion  called  Trajana. 
Whilst  holding  this  commission  he  became  a  Christian,  and 
believing,  in'  common  with  his  fellow  Christians,  that  war 
war  no  longer  permitted  to  him,  he  threw  down  his  belt  at 
the  head  of  the  legion,  declaring  that  he  had  become  a 
Christian,  and  that  he  would  serve  no  longer.  He  was 
committed  to  prison ;  but  he  was  still  faithful  to  Christianity. 
"  It  is  not  lawful,"  said  he,  "  for  a  Christian  to  bear  arms 
for  any  earthly  consideration  ;"  and  he  was  in  consequence 
put  to  death.  Almost  immediately  afterwards,  Cassian,  who 
was  Notary  to  the  same  legion,  gave  up  his  office.  He 
steadfastly  maintained  the  sentiments  of  Marcellus,  and  like 
him  was  consigned  to  the  executioner.  Martin,  of  whom  so 
much  is  said  by  Sulpicius  Severus,  was  bred  to  the  profession 
of  arms,  which,  on  his  acceptance  of  Christianity,  he  aban- 
doned. To  Julian  the  Apostate,  the  only  reason  that  we  find 
he  gave  for  his  conduct  was  this — "  I  am  a  Christian,  and 
therefore  I  cannot  fight."  The  answer  of  Tarachus  to  Nu- 
merianus  Maximus,  is  ih  words  nearly  similar : — "  I  have 
led  a  military  life  and  am  a  Roman;  and  because  I  am  a 
Christian  I  have  abandoned  my  profession  of  a  soldier." 

These  were  not  the  sentiments,  and  this  was  not  the  con- 
F 


62 

duct,  of  the  insulated  individuals  who  might  be  actuated  by 
individual  opinions,  or  by  their  private  interpretations  of  the 
duties  of  Christianity.  Their  principles  were  the  principles 
of  the  body.  They  were  recognized  and  defended  by  the 
Christian  writers  their  contemporaries.  Justin  Martyr  and 
Tatian  talk  of  soldiers  and  Christians  as  distinct  characters  ; 
and  Tatian  says  that  the  Christians  declined  even  military 
commands.  Clemens  of  Alexandria  calls  his  Christian  con- 
temporaries the  "  Followers  of  Peace,"  and  expressly  tells  us 
that  "  the  followers  of  peace  used  none  of  the  implements  of 
war."  Lactantius,  another  early  Christian,  says  expressly, 
"  It  can  never  be  lawful  for  a  righteous  man  to  go  to  war." 
About  the  end  of  the  second  century,  Celsus,  one  of  the  op- 
ponents of  Christianity,  charged  the  Christians  with  refusing 
to  bear  arms  even  in  case  of  necessity.  Origen,  the  defen- 
der of  the  Christians,  does  not  think  of  denying  the  fact;  he 
admits  the  refusal,  and  justifies  it,  because  war  was  un- 
lawful. Even  after  Christianity  had  spread  over  almost  the 
whole  of  the  known  world,  Tertullian,  in  speaking  of  a  part 
of  the  Roman  armies,  including  more  than  one  third  of  the 
Standing  Legions  of  Rome,  distinctly  informs  us  that  "  not 
a  Christian  could  be  found  amongst  them." 

All  this  is  explicit.  The  evidence  of  the  following  facts 
is  however  yet  more  determinate  and  satisfactory.  Some  of 
the  arguments  which,  at  the  present  day,  are  brought  against 
the  advocates  of  peace,  were  then  urged  against  these  early 
Christians ;  and  these  arguments  they  examined  and  re- 
belled. This  indicates  investigation  and  inquiry,  and  mani- 
fests that  their  belief  of  the  unlawfulness  of  war,  was  not  a 
vague  opinion,  hastily  admitted,  and  loosely  floating  amongst 
them,  but  that  it  was  the  result  of  deliberate  examination  and 
a  consequent  firm  conviction  that  Christ  had  forbidden  it. 
Tertullian  says,  "  Though  the  soldiers  came  to  John  and 
received  a  certain  form  to  be  observed,  yet  Jesus  Christ,  by 
disarming  Peter,  disarmed  every  soldier  afterwards ;  for 
custom  never  sanctions  any  unlawful  act."  "  Can  a  sol- 
dier's life  be  lawful,"  says  he,  in  another  work,  "  when 
Christ  has  pronounced  that  he  who  lives  by  the  sword  shall 
perish  by  the  sword?  Can  any  one,  who  possesses  the 
peaceable  doctrine  of  the  gospel,  be  a  soldier,  when  it  is  his 
duty  not  so  much  as  to  go  to  law  ?  And  shall  he,  who  is 
not  to  revenge  his  own  wrongs,  be  instrumental  in  bringing 
ethers  into  chains,  imprisonment,  torture,  death  ?" — So  that 


63 

the  very  same  arguments  which  are  brought  in  defence  of 
war  at  the  present  day,  were  brought  against  the  Christians 
sixteen  hundred  years  ago,  and  sixteen  hundred  years  ago 
they  were  repelled  by  these  faithful  contenders  for  the  purity 
of  our  religion.  It  is  remarkable,  too,  that  Tertullian  appeals 
to  the  precepts  from  the  mount,  in  proof  of  those  principles  on 
which  this  essay  has  been  insisting : — that  the  dispositions 
which  the  precepts  inculcate  are  not  compatible  with  war, 
and  that  war,  therefore,  is  irreconcilable  with  Christianity. 

If  it  be  possible,  a  still  stronger  evidence  of  the  primitive 
belief,  is  contained  in  the  circumstance,  that  some  of  the 
Christian  authors  declared  that  the  refusal  of  the  Christian 
to  bear  arms,  was  a  fulfilment  of  ancient  prophecy.  The 
peculiar  strength  of  this  evidence  consists  in  this — that  the 
fact  of  a  refusal  to  bear  arms,  is  assumed  as  notorious  and 
unquestioned.  Irenseus,  who  lived  about  Anno  180,  affirms 
that  the  prophecy  of  Isaiah,  which  declared  that  men  should 
turn  their  swords  into  ploughshares,  and  their  spears  into 
pruning-hooks,  had  been  fulfilled  in  his  time ;  "  for  the 
Christians,"  says  he,  "  have  changed  their  swords  and  their 
lances  into  instruments  of  peace,  and  they  know  not  now 
how  to  fight"  Justin  Martyr,  his  contemporary,  writes, — 
"  That  the  prophecy  is  fulfilled,  you  have  good  reason  to 
believe,  for  we,  who  in  times  past  killed  one  another,  do  not 
now  fight  with  our  enemies"  Tertullian,  who  lived  later, 
says,  "  You  must  confess  that  the  prophecy  has  been  accom- 
plished, as  far  as  the  practice  of  every  individual  is  con- 
cerned, to  whom  it  is  applicable."* 

It  has  been  sometimes  said,  that  the  motive  which  influ- 

*  These  examples  might  be  multiplied.  Enough,  however, 
have  been  given  to  establish  our  position;  and  the  reader  who 
desires  further  or  more  immediate  information,  is  referred  to 
Justin  Mart,  in  Dialog,  cum  Tryph.  ejusdemque  Apolog.  2. — ad 
Zenam:  Tertull.  de  corona  militis. — Apolog.  Cap.  21  and  37. — 
lib.  de  Idolol.  C.  17,  18,  19. — ad  Scapulam  cap.  1. — adversus 
Jud.  Cap.  7  and  9. — adv.  Gnost.  13. — adv.  Marc.  C.  4. — lib.  de 
patient  C.  6.  10:  Orig.  cont.  Celsum  lib.  3,  5,  8. — In  Josuam, 
horn.  12  Cap.  9. — in  Matt.  Cap.  26  Tract.  36:  Cypr.  Epist.  56. — 
ad  Cornel.  Lactam  de  just.  lib.  5.  C.  18  Lib.  6  C.  20:  JLmbr. 
in  Luc.  22:  Chrysost.  in  Matth.  5.  horn.  18. — in  Matth.  26  horn. 
85.— lib.  2  de  Sacerdotio. — 1  Cor.  13:  Chromat.  in  Matth.  5. 
Rieron,  ad  Ocean. — lib.  Epist.  p.  3  Tom.  1.  Ep.  2:  Athan.  de 
Inc.  Verb.  Dei:  Cyrill.  Alex.  lib.  11.  in  Johan.  Cap.  25,  26.  See 
also  Erasmus.  Luc.  Cap.  3,  and  22.  Ludov.  Vives  in  Introd.  ad. 
Sap:  I Ferus  lib.  4  Comment  in  Matth.  7  and  Luc.  22. 


enced  the  early  Christians  to  refuse  to  engage  in  war,  con- 
sisted in  the  idolatry  which  was  connected  with  the  Roman 
armies. — One  motive  this  idolatry  unquestionably  afforded ; 
but  it  is  obvious,  from  the  quotations  which  we  have  given, 
that  their  belief  of  the  unlawfulness  of  fighting,  independent 
of  any  question  of  idolatry,  was  an  insuperable  objection  to 
engaging  in  war.  Their  words  are  explicit :  "  I  cannot  fight 
if  I  die." — "I  am  a  Christian,  and  therefore  I  cannot  fight." 
— "  Christ,"  says  Tertullian,  "  by  disarming  Peter,  dis- 
armed every  soldier ;"  and  Peter  was  not  about  to  fight  in 
the  armies  of  idolatry.  So  entire  was  their  conviction  of 
the  incompatibility  of  war  with  our  religion,  that  they  would 
not  even  be  present  at  the  gladiatorial  fights,  "  lest,"  says 
Theophilus,  "  we  should  become  partakers  of  the  murders 
committed  there."  Can  any  one  believe  that  they  who  would 
not  even  witness  a  battle  between  two  men,  would  themselves 
fight  in  a  battle  between  armies  ?  And  the  destruction  of  a 
gladiator,  it  should  be  remembered,  was  authorised  by  the 
state  as  much  as  the  destruction  of  enemies  in  war. 

It  is,  therefore,  indisputable,  that  the  Christians  who  lived 
nearest  to  the  time  of  our  Saviour,  believed,  with  undoubting 
confidence,  that  he  had  unequivocally  forbidden  war — that 
they  openly  avowed  this  belief,  and  that,  in  support  of  it, 
they  were  willing  to  sacrifice,  and  did  sacrifice,  their  for- 
tunes and  their  lives. 

Christians,  however,  afterwards  became  soldiers ;  And 
when? — When  their  general  fidelity  to  Christianity  became 
relaxed ;  when,  in  other  respects,  they  violated  its  princi- 
ples ; — when  they  had  begun  "  to  dissemble,"  and  "  to  falsify 
their  word,"  and  "  to  cheat ;" — when  "  Christian  Casuists" 
had  persuaded  them  that  they  might  "  sit  at  meat  in  the 
idoVs  temple  ,•"■ — when  Christians  accepted  even  the  priest- 
hoods of  idolatry.  In  a  word,  they  became  soldiers,  when 
they  had  ceased  to  be  Christians. 

The  departure  from  the  original  faithfulness,  was,  how- 
ever, not  suddenly  general.  Like  every  other  corruption, 
war  obtained  by  degrees.  During  the  first  two  hundred 
years,  not  a  Christian  soldier  is  upon  record.  In  the  third 
century,  when  Christianity  became  partially  corrupted, 
Christian  soldiers  were  common.  The  number  increased 
with  the  increase  of  the  general  profligacy ;  until  at  last,  in 
the  fourth  century,  Christians  became  soldiers  without  hesi- 
tation, and,  perhaps,  without  remorse*     Here  and  there, 


65 

however,  an  ancient  Father  still  lifted  up  his  voice  for  peace ; 
but  these,  one  after  another,  dropping  from  the  world,  the 
tenet  that  war  is  unlawful,  ceased  at  length  to  be  a  tenet  of 
the  church. 

Such  was-  the  origin  of  the  present  belief  in  the  lawfulness 
of  war.  It  began  in  unfaithfulness,  was  nurtured  by  profli- 
gacy, and  was  confirmed  by  general  corruption. — We  seri- 
ously, then,  and  solemnly  invite  the  conscientious  Christian 
of  the  present  day,  to  consider  these  things.  Had  the  pro- 
fessors of  Christianity  continued  in  the  purity  and  faithful- 
ness of  their  forefathers,  we  should  now  have  believed  that 
war  was  forbidden ;  and  Europe,  many  long  centuries  ago, 
would  have  reposed  in  peace. 

Let  it  always  be  borne  in  mind  by  those  who  are  advo- 
cating war,  that  they  are  contending  for  a  corruption  which 
their  forefathers  abhorred ;  and  that  they  are  making  Jesus 
Christ  the  sanctioner  of  crimes,  which  his  purest  followers 
offered  up  their  lives  because  they  would  not  commit. 

An  argument  has  sometimes  been  advanced  in  favour  of 
war  from  the  Divine  communications  to  the  Jews  under  the 
administration  of  Moses.  It  has  been  said,  that  as  wars 
were  allowed  and  enjoined  to  that  people,  they  cannot  be  in- 
consistent with  the  will  of  God. 

We  have  no  intention  to  dispute  that,  under  the  Mosaic 
dispensation,  some  wars  were  allowed,  or  that  they  were  en- 
joined upon  the  Jews  as  an  imperative  duty.  But  those  who 
refer,  in  justification  of  our  present  practice,  to  the  authority 
by  which  the  Jews  prosecuted  their  wars,  must  be  expected 
to  produce  the  same  authority  for  our  own.  Wars  were 
commanded  to  the  Jews,  but. are  they  commanded  to  us? 
War,  in  the  abstract,  was  never  commanded.  And,  surely, 
those  specific  wars  which  were  enjoined  upon  the  Jews  for 
an  express  purpose,  are  neither  authority  nor  example  for 
us,  who  have  received  no  such  injunction,  and  can  plead  no 
such  purpose. 

It  will,  perhaps,  be  said  that  the  commands  to  prosecute 
wars,  even  to  extermination,  are  so  positive  and  so  often 
repeated,  that  it  is  not  probable,  if  they  were  inconsistent 
with  the  will  of  Heaven,  they  would  have  been  thus  pe- 
remptorily enjoined.  We  answer,  that  they  were  not  incon- 
sistent with  the  will  of  Heaven  then.  But  even  then,  the 
prophets  foresaw  that  they  were  not  accordant  with  the  uni- 
versal will  of  God,  since  they  predicted  that  when  that  will 
f2 


66 

should  be  fulfilled,  war  should  be  eradicated  from  the  world, 
And  by  what  dispensation  was  this  will  to  be  fulfilled !  By 
that  of  the  "  Rod  out  of  the  stem  of  Jesse." 

But  what  do  those  who  refer  to  the  dispensation  of  Moses 
maintain  ?  Do  they  say  that  the  injunctions  to  the  Jews  are 
binding  upon  them  ?  If  they  say  this,  we  have  at  least  rea- 
son to  ask  them  for  greater  consistency  of  obedience.  That 
these  injunctions,  in  point  of  fact,  do  not  bind  them,  they  give 
sufficient  proof,  by  the  neglect  of  the  greater  portion  of  them, 
enforced  as  those  injunctions  were,  by  the  same  authority  as 
that  which  commanded  war.  They  have,  therefore,  so  far 
as  their  argument  is  concerned,  annulled  the  injunctions  by 
their  own  rejection  of  them.  And  out  of  ten  precepts  to  re- 
ject nine  and  retain  one,  is  a  gratuitous  and  idle  mode  of 
argument. 

If  I  be  told  that  we  still  acknowledge  the  obligation  of 
many  of  these  precepts,  I  answer  that  we  acknowledge  the 
duties  which  they  enjoin,  but  not  because  of  the  authority 
which  enjoined  them.  We  obey  the  injunctions,  not  because 
they  were  delivered  under  the  law,  but  because  they  are  en- 
forced by  Christianity.  The  command  "  Thou  shalt  not 
kill,"  has  never  been  abolished ;  but  Christians  do  not  prohi- 
bit murder  because  it  was  denounced  in  the  decalogue,  they 
would  have  prohibited  it  if  the  decalogue  had  never  existed. 

But  farther :  Some  of  the  commands  under  the  law,  Chris- 
tianity requires  us  to  disobey.  If  a  man  have  a  stubborn 
and  rebellious  son,  which  will  not  obey  the  voice  of  his  fa- 
ther, &c.  all  the  men  of  the  city  shall  stone  him  with 
stones  that  he  die.*  If  thy  brother,  the  son  of  thy  mother, 
or  thy  son,  or  thy  daughter,  or  the  wife  of  thy  bosom,  entice 
thee  secretly,  saying,  «  Let  us  go  and  serve  other  Gods,' 
thou  shalt  not -pity  him  or  conceal  him,  but  thou  shalt  surely 
hill  him  ;  thine  hand  shall  be  first  upon  him  to  put  him  to 
death."-f  Now  we  know  that  Christianity  will  not  sanction 
an  obedience  of  these  commands  ;  and  if  we  did  obey  them, 
our  own  laws  would  treat  us  as  murderers.  If  the  precepts 
under  the  dispensation  of  Moses  are  binding  because  they 
were  promulgated  by  Heaven,  they  are  binding  in  all  their 
commands  and  all  their  prohibitions.  But  some  of  these 
precepts  we  habitually  disregard,  and  some  it  were  criminal 

*  Deut.  xxi.  18,  21.  f  Deut.  xiii.  9. 


67 

to  obey ;  and  with  what  reason  then  do  we  refer  to  them  in 
our  defence  ? 

And  why  was  the  law  superseded  ?  Because  it  "  made 
nothing  perfect." — "  The  law  was  given  by  Moses,  but  grace 
and  truth  came  by  Jesus  Christ."  The  manner  in  which 
the  author  of  "  Truth"  prefaced  some  of  his  most  important 
precepts,  is  much  to  our  present  purpose.  "  It  hath  been 
said  by  them  of  old  time,  An  eye  for  an  eye,"  &c.  He  then 
introduces  his  own  precept  with  the  contradistinguishing  pre- 
face— "  But  /  say  unto  you."  This,  therefore,  appears  to 
be  a  specific  abrogation  of  the  authority  of  the  legal  injunc- 
tions, and  an  introduction  of  another  system ;  and  this  is  all 
that  our  present  purpose  requires.  The  truth  is,  that  the 
law  was  abolished  because  of  its  imperfections ;  yet  we  take 
hold  of  one  of  these  imperfections  in  justification  of  our  pre- 
sent practice.  Is  it  because  we  feel  that  we  cannot  defend  it 
by  our  own  religion  ? 

We  therefore  dismiss  the  dispensation  of  Moses  from  any 
participation  in  the  argument.  Whatever  it  allowed,  or 
whatever  it  prohibited  in  relation  to  war,  we  do  not  inquire. 
We  ask  only  what  Christianity  allows  and  prohibits,  and  by 
this  we  determine  the  question. — It  is  the  more  necessary  to 
point  out  the  inapplicability  of  these  arguments  from  the  Old 
Testament,  because  there  are  some  persons  of  desultory 
modes  of  thinking,  who  find  that  war  is  allowed  in  "the 
Bible,"  and  who  forget  to  inquire  into  the  present  authority 
of  the  permission. 

There  are  some  persons  who  suppose  themselves  suffi- 
ciently justified  in  their  approbation  of  war,  by  the  example 
of  men  of  piety  of  our  own  times.  The  argument,  as  an 
argument,  is  of  little  concern ;  but  every  thing  is  important 
that  makes  us  acquiescent  in  war.  Here  are  men,  say  they, 
who  make  the  knowledge  of  their  duties  the  great  object  of 
their  study,  and  yet  these  men  engage  in  war  without  any 
doubt  of  its  lawfulness.  All  this  is  true ;  and  it  is  true  also, 
that  some  good  men  have  expressly  inculcated  the  lawfulness 
of  war ;  and  it  is  true  also,  that  the  Articles  of  the  Church  of 
England  specifically  assert  it.* — But  what,  if  it  should  have 
come  to  pass,  that  "  blindness  in  part,  hath  happened  unto 
Israel!" 

What  is  the  argument?  That  good  men  have  engaged  in 

*  Note  R. 


war,  and  therefore  that  Christianity  allows  it.  They 
who  satisfy  themselves  with  such  reasoning,  should  bear  in 
mind  that  he  who  voluntarily  passes  over  the  practice  of  the 
two  first  centuries  of  Christianity,  and  attempts  to  defend 
himself  by  the  practice  of  after  and  darker  ages,  has  obvi- 
ously no  other  motive  than  that  he  finds  his  religion,  when 
vitiated  and  corrupt,  more  suitable  to  his  purpose  than  it  was 
in  the  days  of  its  purity.  This  state  of  imperfection  and 
impurity  has  diffused  an  influence  upon  the  good,  as  upon 
the  bad.  I  question  not  that  some  Christians  of  the  present 
day  who  defend  war,  believe  they  act  in  accordance  with 
their  religion ;  just  as  I  question  not  that  many,  who  zealous- 
ly bore  faggots  to  the  stake  of  the  Christian  martyrs,  believ- 
ed so  too.  The  time  has  been,  when  those  who  killed  good 
men  thought  "  they  did  God  service"*  But  let  the  suc- 
ceeding declaration  be  applied  by  our  present  objectors — 
"  These  things  will  they  do  unto  you,  because  they  have  not 
known  the  Father  nor  Me"^  Here,  then,  appears  to  be  our 
error — that  we  do  not  estimate  the  conduct  of  men  by  the 
standard  of  the  gospel,  but  that  we  reduce  the  standard  of 
the  gospel  to  the  conduct  of  men.  That  good  men  should 
fail  to  conform  to  the  perfect  purity  of  Christianity,  or  to 
perceive  it,  need  not  be  wondered,  for  we  have  sufficient  ex- 
amples of  it.  Good  men,  in  past  ages  allowed  many  things 
as  permitted  by  Christianity,  which  we  condemn,  and  shall 
for  ever  condemn.  In  the  present  day  there  are  many  ques- 
tions of  duty  on  which  men  of  piety  disagree.  If  their  au- 
thority be  rejected  by  us  on  other  points  of  practice,  why  is 
it  to  determine  the  question  of  war  1  Especially  why  do  we 
insist  on  their  decisions,  when  they  differ  in  their  decisions 
themselves  ?  If  good  men  have  allowed  the  lawfulness  of 
war,  good  men  have  also  denied  it.  We  are  therefore  again 
referred  to  the  simple  evidence  of  religion;  an  evidence 
which  it  will  always  be  found  wise  to  admit,  and  dangerous 
to  question. 

There  is,  however,  one  argument  brought  against  us, 
which  if  it  be  just,  precludes  at  once  all  question  upon  the 
subject : — That  a  distinction  is  to  be  made  between  rules 
which  apply  to  us  as  individuals,  and  rules  which  apply  to 
us  as  subjects  of  the  state;  and  that  the  pacific  injunctions 
of  Christ  from  the  mount,  and  all  the  other  kindred  com- 

*  Note  S.  f  Jolm  xvi.  3. 


69 

mands  and  prohibitions  of  the  Christian  Scriptures,  have 
no  reference  to  our  conduct  as  members  of  the  political 
body.  This  is  the  argument  to  which  the  greatest  importance 
is  attached  by  the  advocates  of  war,  and  by  which  thinking 
men  are  chiefly  induced  to  acquiesce  in  its  lawfulness.  In 
reality,  some  of  those  who  think  most  acutely  upon  the  sub- 
ject, acknowledge  that  the  peaceable,  forbearing,  forgiving 
dispositions  of  Christianity,  are  absolutely  obligatory  upon 
individuals  in  their  full  extent :  and  this  acknowledgment  I 
would  entreat  the  reader  to  bear  in  his  recollection. 

Now  it  is  obvious  that  the  proof  of  the  rectitude  of  this 
distinction,  must  be  expected  of  those  who  make  it.  Gene- 
ral rules  are  laid  down  by  Christianity,  of  which,  in  some 
cases,  the  advocate  of  war  denies  the  applicability.  He, 
therefore,  is  to  produce  the  reason  and  the  authority  for  ex- 
ception. Now  we  would  remind  him  that  general  rules  are 
binding  unless  their  inapplicability  can  be  clearly  shown. 
We  would  remind  him  that  the  general  rules  in  question,  are 
laid  down  by  the  commissioned  Ministers  of  Jesus  Christ, 
and  by  Jesus  Christ  himself;  and  we  would  recommend 
him,  therefore,  to  hesitate  before  he  institutes  exceptions  to 
those  rules,  upon  any  authority  inferior  to  the  authority 
which  made  them. 

The  foundation  for  the  distinction  between  the  duties  of 
individuals  and  those  of  communities,  must,  we  suppose,  be 
sought  in  one  of  these  two  positions  : 

1.  That  as  no  law  exists,  of  general  authority  amongst 
nations,  by  which  one  state  is  protected  from  the  violence  of 
another,  it  is  necessary  that  each  independent  community 
should  protect  itself;  and  that  the  security  of  a  nation  can- 
not sometimes  be  maintained  otherwise  than  by  war. 

2.  That  as  the  general  utility  and  expediency  of  actions 
is  the  foundation  of  their  moral  qualities,  and  as  it  is  some- 
times most  conducive  to  general  utility  and  expediency  that 
there  should  be  a  war,  war  is  therefore,  sometimes  lawful.* 

The  first  of  these  positions  will  probably  be  thus  enforced. 
If  an  individual  suffers  aggression,  there  is  a  Power  to 
which  he  can  apply  that  is  above  himself  and  above  the  ag- 
gressor ;  a  power  by  which  the  bad  passions  of  those  around 
him  are  restrained,  or  by  which  their  aggressions  are  pun- 
ished.    But  amongst  nations  there   is  no  acknowledged  su- 

*  Note  T. 


TO 

perior  or  common  arbitrator. — Even  if  there  were,  there  is 
no  way  in  which  its  decisions  could  be  enforced,  but  by  the 
sword.  War,  therefore,  is  the  only  means  which  one  nation 
possesses  of  protecting  itself  from  the  aggression  of  another. 

This,  certainly,  is  plausible  reasoning ;  but  it  happens  to 
this  argument  as  to  many  others,  that  it  assumes  that  as  es- 
tablished, which  has  not  been  proved,  and  upon  the  proof  of 
which  the  truth  of  the  whole  argument  depends.  It  assumes, 
That  the  reason  why  an  individual  is  not  permitted  to  use 
violence,  is,  that  the  Laws  will  use  it  for  him.  And  in  this 
the  fallacy  of  the  position  consists ;  for  the  foundation  of  the 
duty  of  forbearance  in  private  life,  is  not  that  the  laws  will 
punish  aggression,  but  that  Christianity  requires  forbear- 
ance. Undoubtedly,  if  the  existence  of  a  common  arbitrator 
were  the  foundation  of  the  duty,  the  duty  would  not  be  bind- 
ing upon  nations.  But  that  which  we  require  to  be  proved 
is  this — that  Christianity  exonerates  nations  from  those  du- 
ties which  she  has  imposed  upon  individuals.  This,  the  pre- 
sent argument  does  not  prove;  and,  in  truth,  with  a  singular 
unhappiness  in  its  application,  it  assumes,  in  effect,  that  she 
has  imposed  these  duties  upon  neither  the  one  nor  the  other. 

If  it  be  said  that  Christianity  allows  to  individuals  some 
degree  and  kind  of  resistance,  and  that  some  resistance  is 
therefore  lawful  to  states,  we  do  not  deny  it.  But  if  it  be  said 
that  the  degree  of  lawful  resistance  extends  to  the  slaughter 
of  our  fellow  Christians — that  it  extends  to  war — we  do  deny 
it :  We  say  that  the  rules  of  Christianity  cannot,  by  any 
possible  latitude  of  interpretation  be  made  to  extend  to  it. 
The  duty  of  forbearance,  then,  is  antecedent  to  all  consider- 
ations respecting  the  condition  of  man ;  and  whether  he  be 
under  the  protection  of  laws  or  not,  the  duty  of  forbearance 
is  imposed. 

The  only  truth  which  appears  to  be  elicited  by  the  present 
argument,  is,  that  the  difficulty  of  obeying  the  forbearing 
rules  of  Christianity,  is  greater  in  the  case  of  nations  than  in 
the  case  of  individuals :  The  obligation  to  obey  them  is  the 
same  in  both.  Nor  let  any  one  urge  the  difficulty  of  obe- 
dience in  opposition  to  the  duty ;  for  he  who  does  this,  has 
yet  to  learn  one  of  the  most  awful  rules  of  his  religion — a 
rule  that  was  enforced  by  the  precepts,  and  more  especially 
by  the  final  example,  of  Christ,  of  apostles,  and  of  martyrs, 
the  rule  which  requires  that  we  should  be  "  obedient  even 
unto  death." 


71 

Let  it  not  however  be  supposed  that  we  believe  the  diffi- 
c  ulty  of  forbearance  would  be  as  great  in  practice,  as  it  is 
great  in  theory.  We  hope  hereafter  to  show,  that  it  pro- 
motes our  interests  as  certainly  as  it  fulfils  our  duties. 

The  rectitude  of  the  distinction  between  rules  which  apply 
to  individuals,  and  rules  which  apply  to  states,  is  thus  main- 
tained by  Dr.  Paley  on  the  principle  of  expediency. 

"  The  only  distinction,"  says  he,  "  that  exists  between  the 
case  of  independent  States  and  independent  individuals,  is 
founded  in  this  circumstance ;  that  the  particular  consequence 
sometimes  appears  to  exceed  the  value  of  the  general  rule ;" 
or,  in  less  technical  words,  that  a  greater  disadvantage  may 
arise  from  obeying  the  commands  of  Christianity,  than  from 
transgressing  them.  Expediency,  it  is  said,  is  the  test  of 
moral  rectitude,  and  the  standard  of  our  duty.  If  we  believe 
that  it  will  be  most  expedient  to  disregard  the  general  obliga- 
tions of  Christianity,  that  belief  is  the  justifying  motive  of 
disregarding  them.  Dr.  Paley  proceeds  to  say,  "  In  the 
transactions  of  private  persons,  no  advantage  that  results 
from  the  breach  of  a  general  law  of  justice,  can  compensate 
to  the  public  for  the  violation  of  the  law  ;  in  the  concerns  of 
empire  this  may  sometimes  be  doubted.''''  He  says  there  may 
be  cases  in  which  "  the  magnitude  of  the  particular  evil  in- 
duces us  to  call  in  question  the  obligation  of  the  general  rule." 
"  Situations  may  be  feigned,  and  consequently  may  possibly 
arise,  in  which  the  general  tendency  is  outweighed  by  the 
enormity  of  the  particular  mischief."  Of  the  doubts  which 
must  arise  as  to  the  occasions  when  the  "  obligation"  of 
Christian  laws  ceases,  he  however  says  that  "  moral  philo- 
sophy furnishes  no  precise  solution ;"  and  he  candidly  ac- 
knowledges "  the  danger  of  leaving  it  to  the  sufferer  to  decide 
upon  the  comparison  of  particular  and  general  consequences, 
and  the  still  greater  danger  of  such  decisions  being  drawn 
into  future  precedents.  If  treaties,  for  instance,  be  no  longer 
binding  than  while  they  are  convenient,  or  until  the  incon- 
veniency  ascend  to  a  certain  point,  (which  point  must  be 
fixed  by  the  judgment,  or  rather  by  the  feelings  of  the 
complaining  party,) — one,  and  almost  the  only  method 
of  averting  or  closing  the  calamities  of  war,  of  prevent- 
ing or  putting  a  stop  to  the  destruction  of  mankind,  is  lost 
to  the  world  for  ever."  And  in  retrospect  of  the  indeter- 
minateness  of  these  rules  of  conduct,  he  says  finally,  "  these 


72 

however  are  the  principles  upon  which  the  calculation  is  to 
be  formed."* 

It  is  obvious  that  this  reasoning  proceeds  upon  the  prin- 
ciple that  it  is  lawful  to  do  evil  that  good  may  come.  If 
good  will  come  by  violating  a  treaty,  we  may  violate  it.f 
If  good  will  come  by  slaughtering  other  men,  we  may 
slaughter  them.  I  know  that  the  advocate  of  Expediency 
will  tell  us  that  that  is  not  evil  of  which  good,  in  the  aggre- 
gate comes ;  and  that  the  good  or  evil  of  actions  consists  in 
the  good  or  evil  of  their  general  consequences. — I  appeal  to 
the  understanding  and  the  conscience  of  the  reader — Is  this 
distinction  honest  to  the  meaning  of  the  apostle  1  Did  he 
intend  to  tell  his  readers  that  they  might  violate  their  solemn 
promises,  that  they  might  destroy  their  fellow  Christians,  in 
order  that  good  might  come  ?  If  he  did  mean  this,  surely 
there  was  little  truth  in  the  declaration  of  the  same  apostle 
that  he  used  great  plainness  of  speech. 

We  are  told  that  "  whatever  is  expedient  is  right."  We 
shall  not  quarrel  with  the  dogma,  but  how  is  expediency  to 
be  determined  ?  By  the  calculations  and  guessings  of  men, 
or  by  the  knowledge  and  foresight  of  God  ?  Expediency 
may  be  the  test  of  our  duties,  but  what  is  the  test  of  expe- 
diency ? — Obviously,  I  think  it  is  this  ;  the  decisions  which 
God  has  made  known  respecting  what  is  best  for  man. 
Calculations  of  expediency,  of  "  particular  and  general  con- 
sequences," are  not  entrusted  to  us,  for  this  most  satisfactory 
reason — that  we  cannot  make  them.  The  calculation,  to  be 
any  thing  better  than  vague  guessing,  requires  prescience, 
and  where  is  prescience  to  be  sought  1  Now  it  is  conceded 
by  our  opponents,  that  the  only  Possessor  of  prescience  has 
declared  that  the  forbearing,  non-resisting  character,  is  best 
for  man.  Yet  we  are  told  that  sometimes,  it  is  not  best,  that 
sometimes  it  is  "  inexpedient."  How  do  we  discover  this  1 
The  Promulgator  of  the  law  has  never  intimated  it.  Whence, 
then,  do  we  derive  the  right  of  subtituting  our  computations 
for  His  prescience  ?  Or,  having  obtained  it,  what  is  the  limit 
to  its  exercise  ?  If,  because  we  calculate  that  obedience  will 
not  be  beneficial,  we  may  dispense  with  his  laws  in  one  in- 
stance, why  may  we  not  dispense  with  them  in  ten  ?  Why 
may  we  not  abrogate  them  altogether  1 

*  Moral  and  Political  Philosophy,  Chap.  "  Of  War  and  Military 
Establishments. " 
f  Ibid. 


73 

The  right  is  however  claimed ;  and  how  is  it  to  be  exer- 
cised ?  We  are  told  that  the  duty  of  obedience  "  may  some- 
times be  doubted" — that  in  some  cases,  we  are  induced  to 
u  call  in  question"  the  obligation  of  the  Christian  rule— that 
"  situations  may  be  feigned"  that  circumstances  "  may  pos- 
sibly arise"  in  which  we  are  at  liberty  to  dispense  with  it — ■ 
that  still  it  is  dangerous  to  leave  "  it  to  the  sufferer  to  decide" 
when  the  obligation  of  the  rule  ceases ;  and  that  of  all  these 
doubts  "  philosophy  furnishes  no  precise  solution !" — I  know 
not  how  to  contend  against  such  principles  as  these.  An 
argument  might  be  repelled ;  the  assertion  of  a  fact  might  be 
disproved;  but  what  answer  can  be  made  to  "  possibilities" 
and  "  doubts  ?"  They  who  are  at  liberty  to  guess  that 
Christian  laws  may  sometimes  be  suspended,  are  at  liberty 
to  guess  that  Jupiter  is  a  fixed  star,  or  that  the  existence  of 
America  is  a  fiction.  What  answer  the  man  of  science 
would  make  to  such  suppositions  I  do  not  know,  and  I  do  not 
know  what  answer  to  make  to  ours.  Amongst  a  community 
which  had  to  decide  on  the  "  particular  and  general  conse- 
quences" of  some  political  measure,  which  involved  the  sa- 
crifice of  the  principles  of  Christianity,  there  would  of  ne- 
cessity be  an  endless  variety  of  opinions.  Some  would  think 
it  expedient  to  supersede  the  law  of  Christianity,  and  some 
would  think  the  evil  of  obeying  the  law,  less  than  the  evil  of 
transgressing  it.  Some  would  think  that  the  "particular 
mischief"  outweighed  the  "  general  rule,"  and  some  that  the 
"  general  rule"  outweighed  the  "  particular  mischief."  And 
in  this  chaos  of  opinion,  what  is  the  line  of  rectitude,  or  how 
is  it  to  be  discovered  ?  Or  is  that  rectitude,  which  appears 
to  each  separate  individual  to  be  right  ?  And  are  there  as 
many  species  of  truth,  as  there  are  discordancies  of  opinion? 
— Is  this  the  simplicity  of  the  Gcspel  ?  Is  this  the  path  in 
which  a  wayfaring  man,  though  a  fool,  shall  not  err? 

These  are  the  principles  of  expediency  on  which  it  is  ar- 
gued that  the  duties  which  attach  to  private  life  do  not  attach 
to  citizens. — I  think  it  will  be  obvious  to  the  eye  of  candour, 
that  they  are  exceedingly  indeterminate  and  vague.  Little 
more  appears  to  be  done  by  Dr.  Paley  than  to  exhibit  their 
doubtfulness.  In  truth,  I  do  not  know  whether  he  has  ar- 
gued better  in  favour  of  his  position,  or  against  it.  To  me  it 
appears  that  he  has  evinced  it  to  be  fallacious ;  for  I  do  not 
think  that  any  thing  can  be  Christian  truth,  of  which  the 

G 


74 

truth  cannot  be  more  evidently  proved.  But  whatever  may 
be  thought  of  the  conclusion,  the  reader  will  certainly  per- 
ceive that  the  whole  question  is  involved  in  extreme  vague- 
ness and  indecision ;  an  indecision  and  vagueness,  which  it  is 
difficult  to  conceive  that  Christianity  ever  intended  should  be 
hung  over  the  very  greatest  question  of  practical  morality 
that  man  has  to  determine ;  over  the  question  that  asks 
whether  the  followers  of  Christ  are  at  liberty  to  destroy  one 
another.  That  such  a  procedure  as  a  war,  is,  under  any 
circumstances,  sanctioned  by  Christianity,  from  whose  prin- 
ciples it  is  acknowledged  to  be  "  abhorent,"  ought  to  be 
clearly  made  out.  It  ought  to  be  obvious  to  loose  examina- 
tion. It  ought  not  to  be  necessary  to  ascertaintng  it,  that  a 
critical  investigation  should  be  made,  of  questions  which  or- 
dinary men  cannot  comprehend,  and  which,  if  they  compre- 
hended them,  they  could  not  determine ;  and  above  all  that 
investigation  ought  not  to  end,  as  we  have  seen  it  does  end, 
in  vague  indecision — in  "  doubts"  of  which  even  "  Philosophy 
furnishes  no  precise  solution."  But  when  this  indecision  and 
vagueness  are  brought  to  oppose  the  Christian  evidence  for 
peace  ;  when  it  is  contended,  not  only  that  it  militates  against 
that  evidence,  but  that  it  outbalances  and  supersedes  it — we 
would  say  of  such  an  argument,  that  it  is  not  only  weak,  but 
idle;  of  such  a  conclusion,  that  it  is  not  only  unsound,  but 
preposterous. 

Christian  obligation  is  a  much  more  simple  thing  than 
speculative  plilosophy  would  make  it  appear ;  and  to  all  those 
who  suppose  that  our  relations  as  subjects  dismiss  the  obli- 
gation of  Christian  laws,  we  would  offer  the  consideration, 
that  neither  the  Founder  of  Christianity,  nor  his  apostles, 
ever  made  the  distinction.  Of  questions  of  "  particular  and 
general  consequences,"  of  "  general  advantages  and  parti- 
cular mischiefs,"  no  traces  are  to  be  found  in  their  words  or 
writings.  The  morality  of  Christianity  is  a  simple  system, 
adapted  to  the  comprehensions  of  ordinary  men.  Were  it 
otherwise,  what  would  be  its  usefulness?  If  philosophers 
only  could  examine  our  duties,  and  if  their  examinations 
ended  in  doubts  without  solution,  how  would  men,  without 
learning  and  without  leisure,  regulate  their  conduct  ?  I  think, 
indeed,  that  it  is  a  sufficient  objection  to  all  such  theories  as 
the  present,  that  they  are  not  adapted  to  the  wayfaring  man. 
If  the  present  theory  be  admitted,  one  of  these  two  effects 


75 

will  be  the  consequence :  the  greater  part  of  the  community 
must  trust  for  the  discovery  of  their  duties  to  the  sagacity  of 
others,  or  they  must  act  without  any  knowledge  of  their 
duties  at  all. 

But,  that  the  pacific  injunctions  of  the  Christian  Scriptures 
do  apply  to  us,  under  every  circumstance  of  life,  whether 
private  or  public,  appears  to  be  made  necessary  by  the 
universality  of  Christian  obligation.*  The  language  of 
Christianity  upon  the  obligation  of  her  moral  laws,  is  essen- 
tially this — "  What  I  say  unto  you,  I  say  unto  all."  The 
pacific  laws  of  our  religion,  then,  are  binding  upon  all  men ; 
upon  the  king,  and  upon  every  individual  who  advises  him, 
upon  every  member  of  a  legislature,  upon  every  officer  and 
agent,  and  upon  every  private  citizen.  How  then  can  that 
be  lawful  for  a  body  of  men  which  is  unlawful  for  each  in- 
dividual ?  How,  if  one  be  disobedient,  can  his  offence  make 
disobedience  lawful  to  all?  We  maintain  yet  more,  and  say, 
that  to  dismiss  Christian  benevolence  as  subjects,  and  to  re- 
tain it  as  individuals,  is  simply  impossible.  He  who  pos- 
sesses that  subjugation  of  the  affections,  and  that  universality 
of  benevolence,  by  which  he  is  influenced  to  do  good  to  those 
who  hate  him,  and  to  love  his  enemies  in  private  life,  can- 
not, without  abandoning  those  dispositions,  butcher  other 
men  because  they  are  called  public  enemies. 

The  whole  position,  therefore,  that  the  pacific  commands 
and  prohibitions  of  the  Christian  Scriptures,  do  not  apply  to 
our  conduct  as  subjects  of  a  state,  appears  to  me  to  be  a 
fallacy.^  Some  of  the  arguments  which  are  brought  to 
support  it,  so  flippantly  dispense  with  the  principles  of  Chris- 
tian obligation,  so  gratuitously  assume,  that  because  obedi- 
ence may  be  difficult,  obedience  is  not  required,  that  they 
are  rather  an  excuse  for  the  distinction  than  a  justification 
of  it — and  some  are  so  lamentably  vague  and  indeterminate, 
the  principles  winch  are  proposed  are  so  technical,  so  inap- 
plicable to  the  circumstances  of  society,  and  in  truth,  so  in- 
capable of  being  practically  applied,  that  it  is  not  credible 
that  they  were  designed  to  suspend  the  obligation  of  rules, 
which  were  imposed  by  a  revelation  from  heaven. 

The  reputation  of  Dr.  Paley  is  so  great,  that  as  he  has 
devoted  a  chapter  of  the  Moral  Philosophy  to  "  War  and 
Military  Establishments,"  it  will  perhaps  be  expected,  in  an 

*  NoteU.  fNoteV. 


76 

inquiry  like  the  present,  that  some  specific  reference  should 
be  made  to  his  opinions — and  I  make  this  reference  willingly. 

The  chapter  "  on  War"  begins  thus : — "  Because  the 
Christian  Scriptures  describe  wars,  as  what  they  are,  as 
crimes  or  judgments,  some  men  have  been  led  to  believe  that 
it  is  unlawful  for  a  Christian  to  bear  arms.  But  it  should  be 
remembered,  that  it  may  be  necessary  for  individuals  to  unite 
their  force,  and  for  this  end  to  resign  themselves  to  a  com- 
mon will ;  and  yet  it  may  be  true  that  that  will  is  often  ac- 
tuated by  criminal  motives,  and  often  determined  to  destruc- 
tive purposes."  This  is  a  most  remarkable  paragraph :  It 
assumes,  at  once,  the  whole  subject  of  inquiry,  and  is  an  as- 
sumption couched  in  extraordinary  laxity  of  language. — "  It 
may  be  necessary  for  individuals  to  unite  their  force" — The 
tea-table  and  the  drawing-room  have  often  told  us  this  ;  but 
Philosophy  should  tell  us  how  the  necessity  is  proved.  Nor 
is  the  morality  of  the  paragraph  more  rigid  than  the  philoso- 
phy— "  Wars  are  crimes,"  and  are  often  undertaken  from 
"  criminal  motives,  and  determined  to  destructive  purposes ;" 
yet  of  these  purposes,  and  motives,  and  crimes,  "  it  may  be 
necessary"  for  Christians  to  become  the  abettors  and  accom- 
plices ! 

Paley  proceeds  to  say,  that  in  the  New  Testament  the 
'profession  of  a  soldier*  is  no  where  forbidden  or  condemn- 
ed ;  and  he  refers  to  the  cases  of  John  the  Baptist,  of  the 
Roman  Centurion,  and  of  Cornelius ;  and  with  this  he  finishes 
all.  inquiry  into  the  Christian  evidence  upon  the  subject,  after 
having  expended  upon  it  less  than  a  page  of  the  edition  be- 
fore me.f 

These  arguments  are  all  derived  from  the  silence  of  the 
New  Testament,  and  to  all  reasoning  founded  upon  this 
silence,  no  one  can  give  a  better  answer  than  himself.  In 
replying  to  the  defences  by  which  the  advocates  of  Slavery 

*  I  do  not  know  why  "the  profession  of  a  soldier, "  is  substi- 
tuted for  the  simple  term,  war.  Dr.  P.  does  not  say  that  war  is 
no  where  forbidden  or  condemned,  which  censure  or  prohibition, 
it  is  obviously  easy  to  have  pronounced  without  even  noticing 
"the  profession  of  a  soldier. M  I  do  not  say  that  this  language 
implies  a  want  of  ingenuousness,  but  it  certainly  was  more  easy 
to  prove  that  the  profession  of  a  soldier  is  no  where  condemned, 
than  that  vmr  is  no  where  condemned. 

\  Note  W. 


77 

attempt  to  justify  it,  he  notices  that  which  they  advance  from 
the  silence  of  the  New  Testament  respecting  it.  He  says — 
It  is  urged  that  "  Slavery  was  a  part  of  the  civil  constitution 
of  most  countries  when  Christianity  appeared  ;  yet  that  no 
passage  is  to  be  found  in  the  Christian  Scriptures,  by  which 
it  is  condemned  or  prohibited."  "  This,"  he  rejoins,  "  is 
true;  for  Christianity,  soliciting  admission  into  all  nations  of 
the  world,  abstained,  as  behoved  it,  from  intermeddling  with 
the  civil  institutions  of  any.  But  does  it  follow,  from  the 
silence  of  Scripture  concerning  them,  that  all  the  civil  insti- 
tutions which  then  prevailed  were  right,  or  that  the  bad 
should  not  be  exchanged  for  better  !"  I  beg  the  reader  to 
apply  this  reasoning  to  Paley's  own  arguments  in  favour  of 
war  from  the  silence  of  the  Scriptures.  How  happens  it  that 
he  did  not  remember  it  himself? 

Now  I  am  compelled  to  observe,  that  in  the  discussion  of 
the  lawfulness  of  war,  Dr.  Paley  has  neglected  his  professed 
principles  of  decision,  and  his  ordinary  practice.  His  pro- 
fessed principles  are  these  ,*  that  the  discovery  of  the  "  Will 
of  God,  which  is  the  whole  business  of  morality,"  is  to  be  at- 
tained by  referring,  primarily,  to  "  his  express  declarations 
when  they  are  to  be  had,  and  which  must  be  sought  for  in 
Scripture." — Has  he  sought  for  these  declarations?  Has  he 
sought  for  "  Resist  not  evil,"  or  for  "  Love  your  enemies," 
or  for  "  Put  up  thy  sword,"  or  for  "  The  weapons  of  our 
warfare  are  not  carnal,"  or  for  "  My  kingdom  is  not  of  this 
world?"  He  has  sought  for  none  of  these ;  he  has  examined 
none  of  them  ;  he  has  noticed  none  of  them.  His  professed 
principles  are,  again,  that  when  our  instructions  are  dubious, 
we  should  endeavour  to  explain  them  by  what  we  can  col- 
lect of  our  Master's  general  inclination  or  intention*  Has 
he  conformed  to  his  own  rule  ?  Has  he  endeavoured  to  collect 
this  general  inclination,  and  to  examine  this  general  tendency? 
He  has  taken  no  notice  of  it  whatever.  This  neglect,  we  say, 
is  contrary  to  his  ordinary  practice.  Upon  other  subjects, 
he  has  assiduously  applied  to  the  Christian  Scriptures  in  de- 
termination of  truth.  He  has  examined  not  only  their  direct 
evidence,  but  the  evidence  which  they  afford  by  induction 
and  implication  :  the  evidence  arising  from  their  general  ten- 
dency. Suicide  is  no  where  condemned  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment ;  yet  Paley  condemns  it,  and  how  ?   He  examines  the 

*  Moral  and  Political  Philosophy,  Book  ii.  Chap.  4. 

g2 


78 

sacred  volume,  and  finds  that  by  implication  and  inference, 
it  may  be  collected  that  suicide  is  not  permitted  by  Christi- 
anity. He  says  that  patience  under  suffering  is  inculcated  as 
an  important  duty ;  and  that  the  recommendation  of  patience, 
implies  the  unlawfulness  of  suicide  to  get  out  of  suffering. 
This  is  sound  reasoning ;  but  he  does  not  adopt  it  in  the  ex- 
amination of  war.  Could  he  not  have  found  that  the  incul- 
cation of  peaceableness  forms  as  good  an  argument  against 
the  lawfulness  of  war,  as  the  inculcation  of  patience  forms 
against  the  lawfulness  of  suicide?  He  certainly  could  have 
done  this,  and  why  has  he  not  done  it?  Why  has  he  passed 
it  over  in  silence  ? 

I  must  confess  my  belief,  that  he  was  unwilling  to  discuss 
the  subject  upon  Christian  Principles  ;  that  he  had  resolved 
to  make  war  consistent  with  Christianity ;  and  that,  foreseeing 
her  "  express  declarations"  and  "  general  intentions"  mili- 
tated against  it,  he  avoided  noticing  them  at  all.  Thus  much 
at  least  is  certain,  that  in  discussing  the  lawfulness  of  war, 
he  has  abandoned  both  his  avowed  principles  and  his  corres- 
pondent practice.  There  is,  to  me  at  least,  in  the  chapter 
"On  War,"  an  appearance  of  great  indecision  of  mind, 
arising  from  the  conflict  between  Christian  truth  and  the 
power  of  habit,  between  the  consciousness  that  war  is  "  ab- 
horrent" to  our  religion,  and  the  desire  to  defend  it  on  the 
principle  of  expediency.  The  whole  chapter  is  characterized 
by  a  very  extraordinary  laxity,  both  of  arguments  and  prin- 
ciples. 

After  the  defensibility  of  war  has  been  proved,  or  assumed, 
in  the  manner  which  we  have  exhibited,  Dr.  Paley  states  the 
occasions  upon  which  he  determines  that  wars  become  justi- 
fiable. "  The  objects  of  just  war,"  says  he,  "  are  precau- 
tion, defence,  or  reparation." — "  Every  just  war,  supposes 
an  injury  perpetrated,  attempted,  or  feared." 

I  shall  acknowledge,  that  if  these  be  justifying  motives  to 
war,  I  see  very  little  purpose  in  talking  of  morality  upon  the 
subject.  It  was  wise  to  leave  the  principles  of  Christianity 
out  of  the  question,  and  to  pass  them  by  unnoticed,  if  they 
were  to  be  succeeded  by  principles  like  these.  It  is  in  vain 
to  expatiate  on  moral  obligations,  if  we  are  at  liberty  to  de- 
clare war  whenever  an  "  injury  is  feared."  An  injury,  with- 
out limit  to  its  insignificance !  A  fear,  without  stipulation  for 
its  reasonableness  !  The  judges,  also,  of  the  reasonableness 
of  fear,  are  to  be  they  who  are  under  its  influence ;  and  who 


79 

so  likely  to  judge  amiss  as  those  who  are  afraid  ?  Sounder 
philosophy  than  this  has  told  us,  that "  he  who  has  to  reason 
upon  his  duty  when  the  temptation  to  transgress  it  is  before 
him,  is  almost  sure  to  reason  himself  into  an  error."  The 
necessity  for  this  ill-timed  reasoning,  and  the  allowance  of  it, 
is  amongst  the  capital  objections  to  the  philosophy  of  Paley. 
It  tells  us  that  a  people  may  suspend  the  laws  of  God  when 
they  think  it  is  "  expedient ;"  and  they  are  to  judge  of  this 
expediency  when  the  temptation  to  transgression  is  before 
them ! — Has  Christianity  left  the  lawfulness  of  human  de- 
struction to  be  determined  on  such  principles  as  these  1 

Violence,  rapine,  and  ambition,  are  not  to  be  restrained 
by  morality  like  this.  It  may  serve  for  the  speculation  of  a 
study  ;  but  we  will  venture  to  affirm  that  mankind  will  never 
be  controlled  by  it.  Moral  rules  are  useless,  if,  from  their 
own  nature,  they  cannot  be,  or  will  not  be  applied. — Who  be- 
lieves that  if  kings  and  conquerors  may  fight  when  they  have 
fears,  they  will  not  fight  when  they  have  them  not  1  The 
morality  allows  too  much  latitude  to  the  passions,  to  retain 
any  practical  restraint  upon  them.  And  a  morality  that  will 
not  be  practised,  I  had  almost  said,  that  cannot  be  practised, 
is  an  useless  morality.  It  is  a  theory  of  morals.  We  want 
clearer  and  more  exclusive  rules ;  we  want  more  obvious  and 
immediate  sanctions.  It  were  in  vain  for  a  philosopher  to 
say  to  a  general  who  was  burning  for  glory,  "  You  are  at 
liberty  to  engage  in  the  war  provided  you  have  suffered,  or 
fear  you  will  suffer  an  injury ;  otherwise  Christianity  pro- 
hibits it." — He  will  tell  him  of  twenty  injuries  that  have  been 
suffered,  of  a  hundred  that  have  been  attempted,  and  of  ten 
thousand  that  he  fears.  And  what  answer  can  the  philoso- 
pher make  to  him  ? 

I  think  that  Dr.  Paley  has,  in  another  and  a  later  work, 
given  us  stronger  arguments  in  favour  of  peace,  than  the 
Moral  Philosophy  gives  in  favour  of  war.  In  the  "  Evi- 
dences of  Christianity"  we  find  these  statements : — "  The 
two  following  positions  appear  to  me  to  be  satisfactorily  made 
out ;  first,  That  the  gospel  omits  some  qualities,  which  have 
usually  engaged  the  praises  and  admiration  of  mankind,  but 
which,  in  reality,  and  in  their  general  effects,  have  been 
prejudicial  to  human  happiness  ;  secondly,  that  the  gospel 
has  brought  forward  some  virtues,  which  possess  the  high- 
est intrinsic  value,  but  which  have  commonly  been  over- 
looked and  contemned. — The  second  of  these  propositions  is 


80 

exemplified  in  the  instances  of  passive  courage  or  endurance 
of  suffering,  patience  under  affronts  and  injuries,  humility, 
irresistance,  placability. — The  truth  is,  there  are  two  oppo- 
site descriptions  of  character  under  which  mankind  may  be 
generally  classed.  The  one  possesses  vigour,  firmness,  re- 
solution, is  daring  and  active,  quick  in  its  sensibilities,  jea- 
lous in  its  fame,  eager  in  its  attachments,  inflexible  in  its 
purpose,  violent  in  its  resentments.  The  other  meek,  yield- 
ing, complying,  forgiving,  not  prompt  to  act,  but  willing  to 
suffer,  silent  and  gentle  under  rudeness  and  insult,  suing  for 
reconciliation  where  others  would  demand  satisfaction,  giving 
way  to  the  pushes  of  impudence,  conceding  and  indulgent 
to  the  prejudices,  the  wrong-headedness,  the  intractability 
of  those  with  whom  it  has  to  deal. — The  former  of  these 
characters  is,  and  ever  hath  been,  the  favourite  of  the 
world. — Yet  so  it  hath  happened,  that  with  the  Founder  of 
Christianity,  this  latter  is  the  subject  of  his  commendation, 
his  precepts,  his  example  ;  and  that  the  former  is  so,  in  no 
part  of  its  composition.  This  morality  shows,  at  least,  that 
no  two  things  can  be  more  different  than  the  heroic  and, 
the  Christian  characters.  Now  it  is  proved,  in  contradic- 
tion to  first  impressions,  to  popular  opinion,  to  the  encomiums 
of  orators  and  poets,  and  even  to  the  suffrages  of  historians 
and  moralists,  that  the  latter  character  possesses  most  of 
true  worth,  both  as  being  most  difficult  either  to  be  acquired 
or  sustained,  and  as  contributing  most  to  the  happiness  and 
tranquillity  of  social  life. — If  this  disposition  were  universal, 
the  case  is  clear ;  the  world  would  be  a  society  of  friends  : 
whereas,  if  the  other  disposition  were  universal,  it  would 
produce  a  scene  of  universal  contention.  The  world  would 
not  be  able  to  hold  a  generation  of  such  men.  If,  what  is 
the  fact,  the  disposition  be  partial ;  if  a  few  be  actuated  by  it 
amongst  a  multitude  who  are  not,  in  whatever  degree  it 
does  prevail,  it  prevents,  allays,  and  terminates  quarrels, 
the  great  disturbers  of  human  happiness,  and  the  great 
sources  of  human  misery,  so  far  as  man's  happiness  and 
misery  depend  upon  man.  The  preference  of  the  patient 
to  the  heroic  character,  which  we  have  here  noticed,  is  a 
peculiarity  in  the  Christian  institution,  which  I  propose  as 
an  argument  of  wisdom."* 

*  I  must  be  just.     After  these  declarations,  the  author  says, 
that  when  the  laws  which  inculcate  the  Christian  character,  are 


81 

These  are  the  sentiments  of  Dr.  Paley  upon  this  great 
characteristic  of  the  Christian  Morality.  I  think  that  in  their 
plain,  literal,  and  unsophisticated  meaning,  they  exclude  the 
possibility  of  the  lawfulness  of  war.  The  simple  conclusion 
from  them,  is,  that  violence,  and  devastation,  and  human  de- 
struction cannot  exist  in  conjunction  with  the  character  of  a 
Christian.  This  would  be  the  conclusion  of  the  inhabitant 
of  some  far  and  peaceful  island,  where  war  and  Christianity 
were  alike  unknown.  If  he  read  these  definitions  of  the 
Christian  duties,  and  were  afterwards  told  that  we  thought 
ourselves  allowed  to  plunder  and  to  murder  one  another,  he 
would  start  in  amazement  at  the  monstrous  inconsistency. 
Casuistry  may  make  her  "  distinctions,"  and  philosophy  may 
talk  of  her  "  expediencies,"  but  the  monstrous  inconsistency 
remains.  What  is  the  fact  1  Mahometans  and  Pagans  do 
not  believe  that  our  religion  allows  of  war.  They  reproach 
us  with  the  inconsistency.  Our  wars  are,  with  them,  a 
scandal  and  a  taunt.  "  You  preach  to  us,"  say  they,  "  of 
Christianity,  and  would  convert  us  to  your  creed; — first 
convert  yourselves ;  show  us  that  yourselves  believe  in  it." 
Nay,  the  Jews  at  our  own  doors  tell  us,  that  our  wars  are 
an  evidence  that  the  Prince  of  Peace  is  not  come.  They 
bring  the  violence  of  Christianity  to  prove  that  Christ  was  a 
deceiver.  Thus  do  we  cause  the  way  of  truth  to  be  evil 
spoken  of.  Thus  are  we,  who  should  be  the  helpers  of  the 
world,  its  stumbling  blocks  and  its  shame.  We,  who  should 
be  lights  to  them  that  sit  in  darkness,  cause  them  to  love 
that  darkness  still.  Well  may  the  Christian  be  ashamed  for 
these  things :  Well  may  he  be  ashamed  for  the  reputation 
of  his  religion :  And  he  may  be  ashamed,  too,  for  the  ho- 
noured defender  of  the  Christian  faith,  who  stands  up,  the 

applied  to  what  is  necessary  to  be  done  for  the  sake  of  the  pub- 
lic, they  are  applied  to  a  case  to  which  they  do  not  belong;  and 
he  adds,  "This  distinction  is  plain,"  but  in  what  its  plainness 
consists,  or  how  it  is  discovered  at  all,  he  does  not  inform  us. 
The  reader  will  probably  wonder,  as  I  do,  that  whilst  Paley  says 
no  two  things  can  be  more  opposite  than  the  Christian  and  the 
heroic  characters,  he  nevertheless  thinks  it  "is  plain,"  that 
Christianity  sanctions  the  latter. 

I  would  take  the  opportunity  afforded  me  by  this  note,  to  en- 
treat the  reader  to  look  over  the  whole  of  Chap.  2,  Part.  II.  in 
the  Evidences  of  Christianity.  He  will  find  many  observations 
on  the  placability  of  the  gospel,  which  will  repay  the  time  of 
reading  them. 


82 

advocate  of  blood ;  who  subtilizes  the  sophisms  of  the  schools, 
and  roves  over  the  fields  of  speculation  to  find  an  argument 
to  convince  us  that  we  may  murder  one  another !  This  is 
the  "  wisdom  of  the  world  ;"  that  wisdom  which  is,  empha- 
tically, "  FOOLISHNESS." 

We  have  seen  that  the  prinoiple  on  which  Dr.  Paley's 
Moral  Philosophy  decides  that  war  is  lawful,  is,  that  it  is 
expedient.  I  know  not  how  this  argument  accords  with 
some  of  the  statements  of  the  Evidences  of  Christianity.  We 
are  there  told  that  the  non-resisting  character  possesses  "  the 
highest  intrinsic  value,"  and  the  "  most  of  true  worth ;"  that 
it  "  prevents  the  great  disturbances  of  human  happiness," 
and  destroys  "  the  great  sources  of  human  misery,"  and 
that  it  "  contributes  most  to  the  happiness  and  tranquillity  of 
social  life."  And  in  what  then  does  expediency  consist,  if 
the  non-resisting  character  be  not  expedient?  Dr.  Paley 
says,  again,  in  relation  to  the  immense  mischief  and  blood- 
shed arising  from  the  violation  of  Christian  duty — "  We  do 
not  say  that  no  evil  can  exceed  this,  nor  any  possible  advan- 
tage compensate  it,  but  we  say  that  a  loss  which  affects  all, 
will  scarcely  be  made  up  to  the  common  stock  of  human 
happiness,  by  any  benefit  that  can  be  procured  to  a  single 
nation."  And  is  not  therefore  the  violation  of  the  duty  inex- 
pedient as  well  as  criminal  ?  He  says,  again,  that  the  war- 
like character  "  is,  in  its  general  effects,  prejudicial  to 
human  happiness," — and,  therefore,  surely  it  is  inexpedient. 

The  advocate  of  war,  in  the  abundance  of  his  topics  of 
defence  (or  in  the  penury  of  them,)  has  had  recourse  to  this : 
That  as  a  greater  number  of  male  children  are  brought 
into  the  world  than  of  female,  wars  are  the  ordination  of 
Providence  to  rectify  the  inequality ;  and  one  or  two  mo- 
ralists have  proceeded  a  step  farther,  and  have  told  us,  not 
that  war  is  designed  to  carry  off  the  excess,  but  that  an  ex- 
cess is  born  in  order  to  supply  its  slaughters.  Dreadful ! 
Are  we  to  be  told  that  God  sends  too  many  of  his  rational 
creatures  into  the  world,  and  therefore  that  he  stands  in  need 
of  wars  to  destroy  them?  Has  he  no  other  means  of  ad- 
justing the  proportions  of  the  species,  than  by  a  system  which 
violates  the  revelation  that  he  has  made,  and  the  duties  that 
he  has  imposed  ?  Or,  yet  more  dreadful — are  we  to  be  told 
that  He  creates  an  excess  of  one  of  the  sexes,  on  purpose 
that  their  destruction  of  each  other  may  be  with  impunity  to 
the  species  ?    This  reasoning  surely  is  sufficiently  confident : 


— I  fear  it  is  more  than  sufficiently  profane.  But  alas  for 
the  argument !  It  happens  most  unfortunately  for  it,  that 
although  more  males  are  born  than  females,  yet,  from  the 
greater  mortality  of  the  former,  it  is  found  that  long  before 
the  race  arrives  at  maturity,  the  number  of  females  predo- 
minates. What  a  pity — that  just  as  the  young  men  had 
grown  old  enough  to  kill  one  another,  it  should  be  discover- 
ed that  there  are  not  too  many  to  remain  peaceably  alive  ! 
Let  then,  the  principle  be  retained  and  acted  upon;  and 
since  we  have  now  an  excess  of  females,  let  us  send  forth  an 
armament  of  ladies,  that  their  redundance  may  be  lopped  by 
the  appointed  means. — But  really  it  is  time  for  the  defender 
of  war  to  abandon  reasoning  like  this.  It  argues  little  in 
favour  of  any  cause,  that  its  advocates  have  recourse  to 
such  deplorable  subterfuges. 

The  magistrate  "  beareth  not  the  sword  in  vain;  for  he  is 
the  minister  of  God,  a  revenger  to  execute  wrath  upon  him 
that  doeth  evil."  From  this  acknowledgment  of  the  lawful- 
ness of  coercion  on  the  part  of  the  civil  magistrate,  an  argu- 
ment has  been  advanced  in  favour  of  war.  It  is  said,  that 
by  parity  of  reasoning,  coercion  is  also  lawful  in  the  sup- 
pression of  the  violence  which  one  nation  uses  towards 
another. 

Some  men  talk  as  if  the  principles  which  we  maintain 
were  subversive  of  all  order  and  government.*  They  ask  us 
— Is  the  civil  magistrate  to  stand  still  and  see  lawless  vio- 
lence ravaging  the  land?  Is  the  whole  fabric  of  human  so- 
ciety to  be  dissolved]  We  answer,  no;  and  that  whenceso- 
ever  these  men  may  have  derived  their  terrors,  they  are  not 
chargeable  upon  us  or  upon  our  principles.  To  deduce  even 
a  plausible  argument  in  favour  of  war  from  the  permission 
"  to  execute  wrath  upon  him  that  doeth  evil,"  it  is  obviously 
necessary  to  show  that  we  are  permitted  to  take  his  life. 
And  the  right  to  put  an  offender  to  death,  must  be  proved,  if 
it  can  be  proved  at  all,  either  from  an  express  permission  of 
the  Christian  Scriptures,  or,  supposing  Christianity  to  have 
given  no  decisions,  either  directly  or  indirectly,  from  a  ne- 
cessity which  knows  no  alternative.  Now  every  one 
knows  that  this  express  permission  to  inflict  death  is  not  to 
be  found  ;  and,  upon  the  question  of  its  necessity,  we  ask  for 
that  evidence  which  alone  can  determine  it — the  evidence  of 

*  Note  X. 


84 

experience:  and  this  evidence,  the  advocate  of  war  has 
never  brought,  and  cannot  bring.  And  we  shall  probably 
not  be  contradicted  when  we  say,  that  that  degree  of  evi- 
dence which  experience  has  afforded,  is  an  evidence  in  our 
favour  rather  than  against  us. 

But  some  persons  entertain  an  opinion,  that  in  the  case  of 
murder,  at  least,  there  is  a  sort  of  immutable  necessity  for 
taking  the  offender's  life.  "  Whoso  sheddeth  man's  blood, 
by  man  shall  his  blood  be  shed."  If  any  one  urges  this 
rule  against  us,  we  reply,  that  it  is  not  a  rule  of  Christianity; 
and  if  the  necessity  of  demanding  blood  for  blood  is  an  ever- 
lasting principle  of  retributive  justice,  how  happens  it  that, 
in  the  first  case  in  which  murder  was  committed,  the  mur- 
derer was  not  put  to  death  7* 

The  philosopher  however  would  prove  what  the  Christian 
cannot ;  and  Mably  accordingly  says,  "  In  the  state  of  na- 
ture, I  have  a  right  to  take  the  life  of  him  who  lifts  his  arm 
against  mine.  This  right,  upon  entering  into  society,  I 
surrender  to  the  magistrate"  If  we  conceded  the  truth  of 
the  first  position,  (which  we  do  not,)  the  conclusion  from  it 
is  a  sophism  too  idle  for  notice.  Having,  however,  been 
thus  told  that  the  state  has  a  right  to  kill,  we  are  next  in- 
formed, by  Filangieri,  that  the  criminal  has  no  right  to  live. 
He  says,  "  If  I  have  a  right  to  kill  another  man,  he  has  lost 
his  right  to  Ufe."\  Rousseau  goes  a  little  farther.  He 
tells  us,  that  in  consequence  of  the  "  social  contract"  which 
we  make  with  the  sovereign  on  entering  into  society,  "  Life 
is  a  conditional  grant  of  the  state  :"J  so  that  we  hold  our 
lives,  it  seems,  only  as  "  tenants  at  will,"  and  must  give 
them  up  whenever  their  owner,  the  state,  requires  them. 
The  reader  has  probably  hitherto  thought  that  he  retained 
his  head  by  some  other  tenure. 

The  right  of  taking  an  offender's  life  being  thus  proved, 
Mably  shows  us  how  its  exercise  becomes  expedient.  "  A 
murderer,"  says  he,  "  in  taking  away  his  enemy's  life,  be- 
lieves he  does  him  the  greatest  possible  evil.  Death,  then, 
in  the  murderer's  estimation,  is  the  greatest  of  evils.  By 
the  fear  of  death,  therefore,  the  excesses  of  hatred  and  re- 
venge must  be  restrained."     If  language  wilder  than  this 

*  NoteY. 

f  Montagu  on  Punishment  of  Death. 

t  Contr.  Soc.  ii.  5.  Montagu. 


85 

can  be  held,  Rousseau,  I  think,  holds  it.  He  says,  "  The 
preservation  of  both  sides  (the  criminal  and  the  state)  is  in- 
compatible;  one  of  the  two  must  perish."  How  it  happens 
that  a  nation  "  must  perish,"  if  a  convict  is  not  hanged,  the 
reader,  I  suppose,  will  not  know. 

I  have  referred  to  these  speculations  for  the  purpose  of 
showing,  that  the  right  of  putting  offenders  to  death  is  not 
easily  made  out*  Philosophers  would  scarcely  have  had 
recourse  to  these  metaphysical  abstractions  if  they  knew  an 
easier  method  of  establishing  the  right.  Even  philosophy, 
however,  concedes  us  much  : — "  Absolute  necessity,  alone," 
says  Pastoret,  "  can  justify  the  punishment  of  death;"  and 
Rousseau  himself  acknowledges,  that  "  we  have  no  right  to 
put  to  death,  even  for  the  sake  of  example,  any  but  those 
who  cannot  be  permitted  to  live  without  danger."  Beccaria 
limits  the  right  to  two  specific  cases ;  in  which,  "  if  an  indi- 
vidual, though  deprived  of  his  liberty,  has  still  such  credit 
and  connexions  as  may  endanger  the  security  of  the  nation, 
or,  by  his  existence,  is  likely  to  produce  a  dangerous  revo- 
lution in  the  established  form  of  government — he  must  un- 
doubtedly die."*  It  is  not,  perhaps,  necessary  for  us  to 
point  out  why,  in  these  suppositious  cases,  a  prisoner  may 
not  be  put  to  death ;  since  I  believe  that  philosophy  will  find 
it  difficult,  on  some  of  her  own  principles,  to  justify  his  de- 
struction :  For  Dr.  Paley  decides,  that  whenever  a  man 
thinks  there  are  great  grievances  in  the  existing  government, 
and  that,  by  heading  a  revolt,  he  can  redress  them,  without 
occasioning  greater  evil  by  the  rebellion  than  benefit  by  its 
success — it  is  his  duty  to  rebel.\  The  prisoner  whom  Bec- 
caria supposes,  may  be  presumed  to  have  thought  this ;  and 
with  reason  too,  for  the  extent  of  his  credit,  his  connexions 
and  his  success,  is  the  plea  for  putting  him  to  death ;  and  we 
must  therefore  leave  it  to  those  who  indulge  in  such  specula- 
tions, to  consider,  how  it  can  be  right  for  one  man  to  take 
the  lead  in  a  revolution,  whilst  it  is  right  for  another  to  hang 
him  for  taking  it. 

What  then  does  the  lawfulness  of  coercion  on  the  part  of 
the  magistrate,  prove  upon  the  question  of  the  lawfulness  of 
war?  If  capital  punishments  had  never  been  inflicted, 
what  would  it  have  proved?     Obviously  nothing.    If  capital 

*  Del  Delitti  e  delia  Penes,  xvi.  Montagu. 
f  Moral  and  Political  Philosophy.       See  Note  Z. 
H 


86 

punishments  cannot  be  shown  to  be  defensible,  what  does  it 
prove  1  Obviously  nothing :  for  an  unauthorized  destruction  of 
human  life  on  the  gallows,  cannot  justify  another  unauthor- 
ized destruction  of  it  on  the  field. 

Perhaps  some  of  those  who  may  have  been  hitherto  wil- 
ling to  give  me  a  patient  attention,  will  be  disposed  to  with- 
draw it,  when  they  hear  the  unlawfulness  of  defensive  war 
unequivocally  maintained.  But  it  matters  not.  My  busi- 
ness is  with  what  appears  to  me  to  be  truth :  if  truth  sur- 
prises us,  I  cannot  help  it — still  it  is  truth. 

Upon  the  question  of  defensive  war,  I  would  beg  the 
reader  to  bear  in  his  recollection,  that  every  feeling  of  his 
nature  is  enlisted  against  us ;  and  I  would  beg  him,  knowing 
this,  to  attain  as  complete  an  abstraction  from  the  influence 
of  those  feelings  as  shall  be  in  his  power.  This  he  will  do, 
if  he  is  honest  in  the  inquiry  for  truth.  It  is  not  necessary 
to  conceal  that  the  principles  which  we  maintain  may  some- 
times demand  the  sacrifice  of  our  apparent  interests.  Such 
sacrifices  Christianity  has  been  wont  to  require :  They  are 
the  tests  of  our  fidelity  ;  and  of  those  whom  I  address,  I  be- 
lieve there  are  some,  who,  if  they  can  be  assured  that  we 
speak  the  language  of  Christianity,  will  require  no  other  in- 
ducements to  obedience. 

The  lawfulness  of  defensive  war,  is  commonly  simplified 
to  the  right  of  self-defence.  This  is  one  of  the  strong  holds 
of  the  defender  of  war,  the  almost  final  fastness  to  which 
he  retires.  The  instinct  of  self-preservation,  it  is  said,  is 
an  instinct  of  nature  ;  and  since  this  instinct  is  implanted 
by  God,  whatever  is  necessary  to  self-preservation,  is  ac- 
cordant with  his  will.  This  is  specious,  but  like  many  other 
specious  arguments,  it  is  sound  in  its  premises,  but,  as  I  think, 
fallacious  in  its  conclusions.  That  the  instinct  of  self-preser- 
vation is  an  instinct  of  nature,  is  clear — that,  because  it  is  an 
instinct  of  nature,  we  have  a  right  to  kill  other  men,  is  not 
clear. 

The  fallacy  of  the  whole  argument  appears  to  consist  in 
this, — that  it  assumes  that  an  instinct  of  nature  is  a  law  of 
paramount  authority.  God  has  implanted  in  the  human 
system,  various  propensities  or  instincts,  of  which  the  pur- 
poses are  wise.  These  propensities  tend  in  their  own  nature 
to  abuse  ;  and  when  gratified  or  followed  to  excess,  they  be- 
come subversive  of  the  purposes  of  the  wisdom  which  im- 
planted them,  and  destructive  of  the  welfare  of  mankind. 


87 

He  has,  therefore,  instituted  a  superior  law,  sanctioned  by 
his  immediate  authority :  by  this  law  we  are  required  to  re- 
gulate these  propensities.  The  question  therefore  is  not 
whether  the  instinct  of  self-preservation  is  implanted  by  na- 
ture, but  whether  Christianity  has  restricted  its  operation. 
By  this,  and  by  this  only,  the  question  is  to  be  determined. 
Now  he  who  will  be  at  the  trouble  of  making  the  inquiry, 
will  find  that  a  regulation  of  the  instincts  of  nature,  and  a 
restriction  of  their  exercise,  is  a  prominent  object  of  the 
Christian  morality  ;  and  I  think  it  is  plain  that  this  regulation 
and  restriction  apply  to  the  instinct  before  us.  That  some 
of  these  propensities  are  to  be  restrained  is  certain.  One  of 
the  most  powerful  instincts  of  our  nature,  is  an  affection  to 
which  the  regulating  precepts  of  Christianity  are  peculiarly 
directed.  I  do  not  maintain  that  any  natural  instinct  is  to 
be  eradicated,  but  that  all  of  them  are  to  be  regulated  and 
restrained ;  and  I  maintain  this  of  the  instinct  of  self-preser- 
vation. 

The  establishment  of  this  position,  is,  indeed,  the  great 
object  of  the  present  inquiry.  What  are  the  dispositions 
and  actions  to  which  the  instinct  of  self-preservation  prompts, 
but  actions  and  dispositions  which  Christianity  forbids  1  They 
are  non-forbearance,  resistance,  retaliation  of  injuries.  The 
truth  is,  that  it  is  to  defence  that  the  peaceable  precepts  of 
Christianity  are  directed.  Offence  appears  not  to  have  even 
suggested  itself.  It  is  "  Resist  not  evil;"  it  is  "  Overcome 
evil  with  good  ;"  it  is  "  Do  good  to  them  that  hate  you  ;"  it 
is  "  Love  your  enemies  ;"  it  is  "  Render  not  evil  for  evil;" 
it  is  "  Whoso  smiteth  thee  on  one  cheek."  All  this  supposes 
previous  offence,  or  injury,  or  violence ;  and  it  is  then  that 
forbearance  is  enjoined. 

"  The  chief  aim,"  says  a  judicious  author,  "  of  those  who 
argue  in  behalf  of  defensive  war,  is  directed  at  the  pas- 
sions ,•"*  and,  accordingly,  the  case  of  an  assassin  will 
doubtless  be  brought  against  me.  I  shall  be  asked — Suppose 
a  ruffian  breaks  into  your  house,  and  rushes  into  your  room 
with  his  arm  lifted  to  murder  you,  do  you  not  believe  that 
Christianity  allows  you  to  kill  him'?  This  is  the  last  re- 
fuge of  the  cause :  my  answer  to  it  is  explicit — I  do  not  be- 
lieve it. 

*  The  lawfulness  of  Defensive  War  impartially  considered,  by 
a  member  of  the  Church  of  England. 


I  have  referred  to  this  utmost  possible  extremity,  because 
I  am  willing  to  meet  objections  of  whatever  nature,  and  be- 
cause, by  stating  this,  which  is  enforced  by  all  our  preju- 
dices and  all  our  instincts,  I  shall  at  least  show  that  I  give 
to  those  who  diner  from  me,  a  fair,  an  open,  and  a  candid 
recognition  of  all  the  consequences  of  my  principles.  I 
would,  however,  beg  the  same  candour  of  the  reader,  and 
remind  him,  that  were  they  unable  to  abide  this  test,  the 
case  of  the  ruffian  has  little  practical  reference  to  war.  I 
remind  him  of  this,  not  because  I  doubt  whether  our  princi- 
ples can  be  supported,  but  because,  if  he  should  think  that 
in  this  case  I  do  not  support  them,  he  will  yet  recollect  that 
very  few  wars  are  proved  to  be  lawful.  Of  the  wars 
which  are  prosecuted,  some  are  simply  wars  of  aggression , 
some  are  for  the  maintenance  of  a  balance  of  power ;  some 
are  in  assertion  of  technical  rights,  and  some,  undoubtedly, 
to  repel  invasion.  The  last  are,  perhaps,  the  fewest ;  and 
of  these  only  it  can  be  said  that  they  bear  any  analogy  what- 
ever to  the  case  which  is  supposed ;  and  even  in  these,  the 
analogy  is  seldom  complete.  It  has  rarely,  indeed,  happen- 
ed that  wars  have  been  undertaken  simply  for  the  preserva- 
tion of  life,  and  that  no  other  alternative  has  remained  to  a 
people,  than  to  kill,  or  to  be  killed.  And  let  it  be  remem- 
bered, that  unless  this  alternative  only  remains,  the  case  of 
the  ruffian  is  irrevelant  ,*  it  applies  not,  practically,  to  the 
subject. 

I  do  not  know  what  those  persons  mean,  who  say,  that 
we  are  authorized  to  kill  an  assassin,  by  the  law  of  nature. 
Principles  like  this,  heedlessly  assumed,  as  of  self-evident 
truth,  are,  I  believe,  often  the  starting-post  of  our  errors ; 
the  point  of  divergency  from  rectitude,  from  which  our  after 
obliquities  proceed.  Some  men  seem  to  talk  of  the  laws  of 
nature,  as  if  nature  were  a  legislatress  who  had  sat  and  framed 
laws  for  the  government  of  mankind. — Nature  makes  no 
laws.  A  law  implies  a  legislator ;  and  there  is  no  legislator 
upon  the  principles  of  human  duty,  but  God.  If,  by  the 
"  law  of  nature,"  is  meant  any  thing  of  which  the  sanctions 
or  obligations  are  different  from  those  of  revelation,  it  is  ob- 
vious that  we  have  set  up  a  moral  system  of  our  own,  and 
in  opposition  to  that  which  has  been  established  by  Heaven. 
If  we  mean  by  the  "  law  of  nature,"  nothing  but  that  which 
is  accordant  with  revelation,  to  what  purpose  do  we  refer  to 
it  all  ?  I  do  not  suppose  that  any  sober  moralist  will  statedly 


89 

advance  the  laws  of  nature  in  opposition  to  the  laws  of  God : 
but  I  think  that  to  advance  them  at  all — that  to  refer  to  any 
principle  or  law,  in  determination  of  our  duty,  irrespectively 
of  the  simple  will  of  God,  is  always  dangerous ;  for  there 
will  be  many,  who,  when  they  are  referred  for  direction  to 
such  law  or  principle,  will  regard  it,  in  their  practice,  as  a 
final  standard  of  truth.  I  believe  that  a  reference  to  the 
laws  of  nature  has  seldom  illustrated  our  duties,  and  never 
induced  us  to  perform  them ;  and  that  it  has  hitherto  an- 
swered little  other  purpose  than  that  of  amusing  the  lovers 
of  philosophical  morality. 

The  mode  of  proving,  or  of  stating,  the  right  to  kill  an 
assassin,  is  this  : — "  There  is  one  case  in  which  all  extremi- 
ties are  justifiable ;  namely,  when  our  life  is  assaulted  and  it 
becomes  necessary  for  our  preservation  to  kill  the  assailant. 
This  is  evident  in  a  state  of  nature ;  unless  it  can  be  shown 
that  we  are  bound  to  prefer  the  aggressor's  life  to  our  own  ; 
that  is  to  say,  to  love  our  enemy  better  than  ourselves,  which 
can  never  be  a  debt  of  justice,  nor  any  where  appears  to  be 
a  duty  of  charity."*  If  I  were  disposed  to  hold  argumenta- 
tion like  this,  I  would  say,  that  although  we  may  not  be  re- 
quired to  love  our  enemies  better  than  ourselves,  we  are 
required  to  love  them  as  ourselves,  and  that  in  the  supposed 
case,  it  still  would  be  a  question  equally  balanced,  which  life 
ought  to  be  sacrificed  ;  for  it  is  quite  clear,  that  if  we  kill  the 
assailant,  we  love  him  less  than  ourselves,  which  may,  per- 
haps, militate  a  little  against  "  a  duty  of  charity."  But  the 
truth  is,  that  the  question  is  not  whether  we  should  love  our 
enemy  better  than  ourselves,  but  whether  we  should  sacrifice 
the  laws  of  Christianity  in  order  to  preserve  our  lives — 
whether  we  should  prefer  the  .interests  of  religion  to  our 
own — whether  we  should  be  willing  to  "  lose  our  life,  for 
Christ's  sake  and  the  gospel's." 

This  system  of  counter-crime  is  of  very  loose  tendency. 
The  assailant  violates  his  duties  by  attempting  to  kill  me, 
and  I,  therefore,  am  to  violate  mine  by  actually  killing  him. 
Is  his  meditated  crime  then,  a  justification  of  my  perpetrated 
crime  ?  In  the  case  of  a  condemned  Christian  martyr  who 
was  about  to  be  led  to  the  stake,  it  is  supposable,  that  by 
having  contrived  a  mine,  he  may  preserve  his  life  by  sud- 

*  Moral  and  Political  Philosophv. 
h2 


90 

denly  firing  it  and  blowing  his  persecutors  into  the  air. 
Would  Christianity  justify  the  act  1  Or  what  should  we  say 
of  him  if  he  committed  it  ?  We  should  say  that  whatever 
his  faith  might  be,  his  practice  was  very  unsound ;  that  he 
might  believe  the  gospel,  but  that  he  certainly  did  not  fulfil 
its  duties.  Now  I  contend  that  for  all  the  purposes  of  the 
argument,  the  cases  of  the  martyr  and  the  assaulted  person 
are  precisely  similar.  He  who  was  about  to  be  led  to  the 
stake,  and  he  who  was  about  to  lose  his  life  by  the  assassin, 
are  both  required  to  regulate  their  conduct  by  the  same  laws, 
and  are  both  to  be  prepared  to  offer  up  their  lives  in  testi- 
mony of  their  allegiance  to  Christianity :  the  one  in  allegiance 
to  her,  in  opposition  to  the  violation  of  her  moral  principles 
and  her  moral  spirit ;  and  the  other,  in  opposition  to  errors 
in  belief  or  to  ecclesiastical  corruptions.  It  is  therefore  in 
vain  to  tell  me  that  the  victim  of  persecution  would  have 
suffered  for  religion's  sake,  for  so  also  would  the  victim  of 
the  ruffian.  There  is  nothing  in  the  sanctions  of  Christi- 
anity, which  implies  that  obedience  to  her  moral  law  is  of 
less  consequence  than  an  adherence  to  her  faith ;  nor  as  it 
respects  the  wrelfare  of  the  world,  does  the  consequence 
appear  to  be  less;  for  he,  who  by  his  fidelity  to  Christianity, 
promotes  the  diffusion  of  Christian  dispositions  and  of  peace, 
contributes,  perhaps,  as  much  to  the  happiness  of  mankind, 
as  he,  who  by  the  same  fidelity,  recommends  the  accept- 
ance of  an  accurate  creed. 

A  great  deal  hangs  upon  this  question,  and  it  is  therefore 
necessary  to  pursue  it  farther.  We  say,  then,  first — that 
Christianity  has  not  declared  that  we  are  ever  at  liberty  to 
kill  other  men:  secondly — that  she  virtually  prohibits  it, 
because  her  principles  and  the  practice  of  our  Saviour  are 
not  compatible  with  it;  and,  thirdly — that  if  Christianity 
allowed  it,  she  would  in  effect  and  in  practice,  allow  war, 
without  restriction  to  defence  of  life. 

The  first  of  these  positions  will  probably  not  be  disputed  ; 
and  upon  the  second,  that  Christianity  virtually  prohibits  the 
destruction  of  human  life,  it  has  been  the  principal  object  of 
this  essay  to  insist.  I  would,  therefore,  only  observe,  that 
the  conduct  of  the  Founder  of  Christianity,  when  his  enemies 
approached  him  "  with  sivords  and  staves,"  appears  to  apply 
strictly  to  self-defence.  These  armed  men  came  with  the 
final  purpose  of  murdering  him  ;  but  although  he  knew  this 


SI 

purpose,  he  would  not  suffer  the  assailants  to  be  killed  or 
even  to  be  wounded.  Christ,  therefore,  would  not  preserve 
his  own  life  by  sacrificing  another's. 

But  we  say,  thirdly,  that  if  Christianity  allows  us  to  kill 
one  another  in  self-defence,  she  allows  war,  without  restric- 
tion to  self-defence.  Let  us  try  what  would  have  been  the 
result  if  the  Christian  Scriptures  had  thus  placed  human  life 
at  our  disposal :  suppose  they  had  said —  You  may  kill  a 
rujfian  in  your  own  defence,  but  you  may  not  enter  into  a 
defensive  war.  The  prohibition  would  admit,  not  of  some 
exceptions  to  its  application — the  exceptions  would  be  so 
many,  that  no  prohibition  would  be  left ;  because  there  is  no 
practical  limit  to  the  right  of  self-defence,  until  we  arrive  at 
defensive  war.  If  one  man  may  kill  one,  two  may  kill  two, 
and  ten  may  kill  ten,  and  an  army  may  kill  an  army: — and 
this  is  defensive  war.  Supposing,  again,  the  Christian 
Scriptures  had  said,  an  army  may  fight  in  its  own  defence, 
but  not  for  any  other  purpose. — We  do  not  say  that  the  ex- 
ceptions to  this  rule  would  be  so  many  as  wholly  to  nullify 
the  rule  itself;  but  we  say  that  whoever  will  attempt  to  apply 
it  in  practice,  will  find  that  he  has  a  very  wide  range  of  jus- 
tifiable warfare ;  a  range  that  will  embrace  many  more  wars, 
than  moralists,  laxer  than  we  shall  suppose  them  to  be,  are 
willing  to  defend.  If  an  army  may  fight  in  defence  of  their 
own  lives,  they  may,  and  they  must  fight  in  defence  of  the 
lives  of  others :  If  they  may  fight  in  defence  of  the  lives  of 
others,  they  will  fight  in  defence  of  their  property :  If  in  de- 
fence of  property,  they  will  fight  in  defence  of  political  rights : 
If  in  defence  of  rights,  they  will  fight  in  promotion  of  inter- 
ests: If  in  promotion  of  interests,  they  will  fight  in  promotion 
of  their  glory  and  their  crimes.  Now  let  any  man  of  honesty 
look  over  the  gradations  by  which  we  arrive  at  this  climax, 
and  I  believe  he  will  find  that,  in  practice,  no  curb  can  be 
placed  upon  the  conduct  of  an  army  until  they  reach  it. 
There  is,  indeed,  a  wide  distance  between  fighting  in  defence 
of  life,  and  fighting  in  furtherance  of  our  crimes ;  but  the 
steps  which  lead  from  one  to  the  other,  will  follow  in  inevit- 
able succession.  I  know  that  the  letter  of  our  rule  excludes 
it,  but  I  know  that  rule  will  be  a  letter  only.  It  is  very  easy 
for  us  to  sit  in  our  studies,  and  to  point  the  commas,  and 
semicolons,  and  periods  of  the  soldier's  career  ;  it  is  very  easy 
for  us  to  say  he  shall  stop  at  defence  of  life,  or  at  protection 


92 

of  property,  or  at  the  support  of  rights ;  but  armies  will  never 
listen  to  us— we  shall  be  only  the  Xerxes  of  morality  throw- 
ing our  idle  chains  into  the  tempestuous  ocean  of  slaughter. 

What  is  the  testimony  of  experience  1  When  nations  are 
mutually  exasperated,  and  armies  are  levied,  and  battles  are 
fought,  does  not  every  one  know  that  with  whatever  motives 
of  defence  one  party  may  have  begun  the  contest,  both,  in 
turn  become  aggressors  ?  In  the  fury  of  slaughter,  soldiers 
do  not  attend,  they  cannot  attend,  to  questions  of  aggression. 
Their  business  is  destruction,  and  their  business  they  will 
perform.  If  the  army  of  defence  obtains  success,  it  soon 
becomes  an  army  of  aggression.  Having  repelled  the  inva- 
der, it  begins  to  punish  him.  If  a  war  is  once  begun,  it  is 
vain  to  think  of  distinctions  of  aggression  and  defence. 
Moralists  may  talk  of  distinctions,  but  soldiers  will  make 
none ;  and  none  can  be  made ;  it  is  without  the  limits  of 
possibility. 

But  indeed,  what  is  defensive  war  ?  A  celebrated  moralist 
defines  it  to  be,  war,  undertaken  in  consequence  of  "  an  in- 
jury perpetrated,  attempted,  or  feared;"  which  shows  with 
sufficient  clearness,  how  little  the  assassin  concerns  the 
question,  for  fear  respecting  life  does  not  enter  into  the  cal- 
culation of  "  injuries."  So,  then,  if  we  fear  some  injury  to 
our  purses,  or  to  our  "  honour,"  we  are  allowed  to  send  an 
army  to  the  country  that  gives  us  fear,  and  to  slaughter  its 
inhabitants ;  and  this,  we  are  told,  is  defensive  war.  By  this 
system  of  reasoning,  which  has  been  happily  called  "  martial 
logic,"  there  will  be  little  difficulty  in  proving  any  war  to  be 
defensive.  Now  we  say  that  if  Christianity  allows  defensive 
war,  she  allows  all  war — except  indeed  that  of  simple  aggres- 
sion ;  and  by  the  rules  of  this  morality,  the  aggressor  is  diffi- 
cult of  discovery ;  for  he  whom  we  choose  to  "  fear,"  may 
say  that  he  had  previous  "  fear"  of  us,  and  that  his  "  fear" 
prompted  the  hostile  symptoms  which  made  us  "  fear" 
again. — The  truth  is,  that  to  attempt  to  make  any  distinc- 
tions upon  the  subject,  is  vain.  War  must  be  wholly  for- 
bidden, or  allowed  without  restriction  to  defence ;  for  no  de- 
finitions of  lawful  or  unlawful  war,  will  be,  or  can  be, 
attended  to.  If  the  principles  of  Christianity,  in  any  case,  or 
for  any  purpose,  allow  armies  to  meet  and  to  slaughter  one 
another,  her  principles  will  never  conduct  us  to  the  period 
which  prophecy  has  assured  us  they  shall  produce.     There 


is  no  hope  of  an  eradication  of  war  but  by  an  absolute  and 
total  abandonment  of  it.* 

What  then  is  the  principle  for  which  we  contend  ?  An 
unreasoning  reliance  upon  Providence  for  defence,  in  all 
those  cases  in  which  we  should  violate  His  laws  by  defend- 
ing ourselves.  The  principle  can  claim  a  species  of  merit, 
which  must  at  least  be  denied  to  some  systems  of  morality— 
that  of  simplicity,  of  easiness  of  apprehension,  of  adaptation 
to  every  understanding,  of  applicability  to  every  circumstance 
of  life. 

If  a  wisdom  which  we  acknowledge  to  be  unerring,  has 
determined  and  declared  that  any  given  conduct  is  right  and 
that  it  is  good  for  man,  it  appears  preposterous  and  irreverent 
to  argue  that  another  can  be  better.  The  Almighty  certainly 
knows  our  interests,  and  if  he  has  not  directed  us  in  the  path 
which  promotes  them,  the  conclusion  is  inevitable,  that  he 
has  voluntarily  directed  us  amiss. — Will  the  advocate  of  war 
abide  this  conclusion  ?  And  if  he  will  not,  how  will  he  avoid 
the  opposite  conclusion,  that  the  path  of  forbearance  is  the 
path  of  expediency? 

It  would  seem  to  be  a  position  of  very  simple  truth,  that  it 
becomes  an  erring  being,  to  regulate  his  actions  by  an  ac- 
quiescent reference  to  an  unerring  will.  That  it  is  neces- 
sary for  one  of  these  erring  beings,  formally  to  insist  upon 
this  truth,  and  systematically  to  prove  it  to  his  fellows,  may 
reasonably  be  a  subject  of  grief  and  of  shame.  But  the 
hardihood  of  guilt  denies  the  truth,  and  the  speculativeness 
of  philosophy  practically  supersedes  it : — and  the  necessity 
therefore  remains. 

We  have  seen  that  the  duties  of  the  religion  which  God 
has  imparted  to  mankind  require  irresistance ;  and  surely  it 
is  reasonable  to  believe,  even  without  a  reference  to  expe- 
rience, that  he  will  make  our  irresistance  subservient  to  our 


*  It  forms  no  part  of  a  Christian's  business  to  inquire  why  his 
religion  forbids  any  given  actions,  although  I  know  not  that  the  in- 
quiry is  reprehensible.  In  the  case  of  personal  attack,  possibly 
Christianity  may  decide,  that  if  one  of  two  men  must  be  hurried 
from  the  world,  of  whom  the  first  is  so  profligate  as  to  assault  the 
life  of  his  fellow,  and  the  other  is  so  virtuous  as  to  prefer  the  loss 
of  life  to  the  abandonment  of  Christian  principles— it  is  more  con- 
sistent with  her  will  that  the  good  should  be  transferred  to  his 
hoped  felicity,  than  that  the  bad  should  be  consigned  to  punish- 
ment. 


94 

interests — that  if,  for  the  purpose  of  conforming  to  his  will, 
we  subject  ourselves  to  difficulty  or  danger,  he  will  protect 
us  in  our  obedience,  and  direct  it  to  our  benefit — that  if  he 
requires  us  not  to  be  concerned  in  war,  he  will  preserve  us 
in  peace — that  he  will  not  desert  those  who  have  no  other 
protection,  and  who  have  abandoned  all  other  protection  be* 
cause  they  confide  in  His  alone. 

And  if  we  refer  to  experience,  we  shall  find  that  the  rea- 
sonableness of  this  confidence  is  confirmed.  There  have 
been  thousands  who  have  confided  in  Heaven  in  opposition 
to  all  their  apparent  interests,  but  of  these  thousands,  has  one 
eventually  said  that  he  repented  his  confidence,  or  that  he 
reposed  in  vain] — "He  that  will  lose  his  life  for  my  sake 
and  the  gospel's,  the  same  shall  find  it."  If  it  be  said  that 
we  take  futurity  into  the  calculation,  in  our  estimate  of  in- 
terest, I  answer — so  we  ought.  Who  is  the  man  that  would 
exclude  futurity ;  or  what  are  his  principles  ?  I  do  not  com- 
prehend the  foundation  of  those  objections  to  a  reference  to 
futurity  which  are  thus  flippantly  made.  Are  we  not  im- 
mortal beings  1  Have  we  not  interests  beyond  the  present 
life  1  It  is  a  deplorable  temper  of  mind,  which  would  diminish 
the  frequency,  or  the  influence,  of  our  references  to  futurity. 
The  prospects  of  the  future  ought  to  predominate  over  the 
sensations  of  the  present.  And  if  the  attainment  of  this  pre- 
dominance be  difficult,  let  us  at  least,  not  voluntarily,  argu- 
mentatively,  persuade  ourselves  to  forego  the  prospect,  or  to 
diminish  its  influence. 

Yet,  even  in  reference  only  to  the  present  state  of  existence, 
I  believe  we  shall  find  that  the  testimony  of  experience  is, 
that  forbearance  is  most  conducive  to  our  interests. 

Integer  vitae  scelerisque  purus 

m    Non  eget  Mauri  jacuhs  neque  arcu, 

Nee  venenatis  gravida  sagittis, 

Fusee,  pharetra. 

Horace. 

And  the  same  truth  is  delivered  by  much  higher  authority 
than  that  of  Horace,  and  in  much  stronger  language : — "  If 
a  man's  ways  please  the  Lord,  he  maketh  even  his  enemies 
to  he  at  peace  with  him" 

The  reader  of  American  history  will  recollect  that  in  the 
beginning  of  the  last  century,  a  desultory  and  most  dreadful 
warfare  was  carried  on  by  the  natives  against  the  European 


95 

settlers ;  a  warfare  that  was  provoked,  as  such  warfare  has 
almost  always  originally  been,  by  the  injuries  and  violence 
of  the  Christians.  The  mode  of  destruction  was  secret  and 
sudden.  The  barbarians  sometimes  lay  in  wait  for  those 
who  might  come  within  their  reach  on  the  highway  or  in  the 
fields,  and  shot  them  without  warning ;  and  sometimes  they 
attacked  the  Europeans  in  their  houses,  "  scalping  some,  and 
knocking  out  the  brains  of  others."  From  this  horrible  war- 
fare, the  inhabitants  sought  safety  by  abandoning  their  homes, 
and  retiring  to  fortified  places,  or  to  the  neighbourhood  of 
garrisons  :  and  those  whom  necessity  still  compelled  to  pass 
beyond  the  limits  of  such  protection,  provided  themselves 
with  arms  for  their  defence.  But  amidst  this  dreadful  deso- 
lation and  universal  terror,  the  Society  of  Friends,  who 
were  a  considerable  proportion  of  the  whole  population,  were 
steadfast  to  their  principles.  They  would  neither  retire  to 
garrisons,  nor  provide  themselves  with  arms.  They  remain- 
ed openly  in  the  country,  whilst  the  rest  were  flying  to  the 
forts.  They  still  pursued  their  occupations  in  the  fields  or  at 
their  homes,  without  a  weapon  either  for  annoyance  or  de- 
fence. And  what  was  their  fate  ?  They  lived  in  security 
and  quiet.  The  habitation,  which,  to  his  armed  neighbour, 
was  the  scene  of  murder  and  of  the  scalping-knife,  was  to  the 
unarmed  Quaker  a  place  of  safety  and  of  peace. 

Three  of  the  Society  were,  however,  killed.  And  who 
were  they  ?  They  were  three  who  abandoned  their  princi- 
ples. Two  of  these  victims  were  men,  who,  in  the  simple 
language  of  the  narrator,  "  used  to  go  to  their  labour  without 
any  weapons,  and  trusted  to  the  Almighty,  and  depended  on 
His  providence  to  protect  them  ;  (it  being  their  principle  not 
to  use  weapons  of  war  to  offend  others  or  to  defend  them- 
selves :)  but  a  spirit  of  distrust  taking  place  in  their  minds, 
they  took  weapons  of  war  to  defend  themselves,  and  the  In- 
dians, who  had  seen  them  several  times  without  them  and  let 
them  alone,  saying  they  were  peaceable  men  and  hurt  no- 
body, therefore  they  would  not  hurt  them, — now  seeing 
them  have  guns,  and  supposing  they-designed  to  kill  the  In- 
dians, they  therefore  shot  the  men  dead."  The  third  whose 
life  was  sacrificed,  was  a  woman,  who  "  had  remained  in  her 
habitation,"  not  thinking  herself  warranted  in  going  "  to  a 
fortified  place  for  preservation,  neither  she,  her  son,  nor 
daughter,  nor  to  take  thither  the  little  ones ;  but  the  poor 
woman  after  some  time  began  to  let  in  a  slavish  fear,  and 


advised  her  children  to  go  with  her  to  a  fort  not  far  from 
their  dwelling."  She  went ; — and  shortly  afterwards  "  the 
bloody,  cruel  Indians,  lay  by  the  way,  and  killed  her."* 

The  fate  of  the  Quakers  during  the  rebellion  in  Ireland 
was  nearly  similar.  It  is  well  known  that  the  rebellion  was 
a  time  not  only  of  open  war,  but  of  cold  blooded  murder ;  of 
the  utmost  fury  of  bigotry,  and  the  utmost  exasperation  of 
revenge.  Yet  the  Quakers  were  preserved  even  to  a  pro- 
verb ;  and  when  strangers  passed  through  streets  of  ruin  and 
observed  a  house  standing  uninjured  and  alone,  they  would 
sometimes  point,  and  say — "  That,  doubtless,  was  the  house 
of  a  Quaker."! 

It  were  to  no  purpose  to  say,  in  opposition  to  the  evidence 
of  these  facts,  that  they  form  an  exception  to  a  general 
rule. — The  exception  to  the  rule  consists  in  the  trial  of  the 
experiment  of  non-resistance,  not  hi  its  success.  Neither 
were  it  to  any  purpose  to  say,  that  the  savages  of  America, 
or  the  desperadoes  of  Ireland,  spared  the  Quakers  because 
they  were  previously  known  to  be  an  unoffending  people,  or 
because  the  Quakers  had  previously  gained  the  love  of  these 
by  forbearance  or  good  offices : — we  concede  all  this  ;  it  is 
the  very  argument  which  we  maintain.  We  say  that  an 
uniform,  undeviating  regard  to  the  peaceable  obligations  of 
Christianity,  becomes  the  safeguard  of  those  who  practise 
it.  We  venture  to  maintain  that  no  reason  whatever,  can  be 
assigned,  why  the  fate  of  the  Quakers  would  not  be  the  fate 
of  all  who  should  adopt  their  conduct.  No  reason  can  be 
assigned  why,  if  their  number  had  been  multiplied  ten  fold 
or  a  hundred  fold,  they  would  not  have  been  preserved.  If 
there  be  such  a  reason,  let  us  hear  it.     The  American  and 

*  See  "  Select  Anecdotes,  &c,  by  John  Barclay,"  p.  71 — 79. 
In  this  little  volume  I  have  found  some  illustrations  of  the  policy 
of  the  principle  which  we  maintain  in  the  case  of  a  personal  at- 
tack. Barclay,  the  celebrated  Apologist,  was  attacked  by  a  high- 
wayman. He  made  no  other  resistance  than  a  calm  expostulation. 
The  felon  dropped  his  presented  pistol  and  offered  no  farther 
violence.  A  Leonard  Fell,  was  assaulted  by  a  highway  robber, 
who  plundered  him  of  his  money  and  his  horse,  and  afterwards 
threatened  to  blow  out  his  brains.  Fell  solemnly  spoke  to  the 
robber  on  the  wickedness  of  his  life.  The  man  was  astonished  : 
— he  declared  he  would  take  neither  his  money  nor  his  horse,  and 
returned  them  both. — "If  thine  enemy  hunger,  feed  him, — for 
in  so  doing  thou  shalt  heap  coals  of  fire  upon  his  head." 

f  Note  A.  A. 


Irish  Quakers  were,  to  the  rest  of  the  community,  what  one 
nation  is  to  a  continent.  And  we  must  require  the  advocate 
of  war  to  produce,  (that  which  has  never  yet  been  produced,) 
a  reason  for  believing,  that  although  individuals  exposed  to 
destruction  were  preserved,  a  nation  exposed  to  destruction 
would  be  destroyed.  We  do  not,  however,  say,  that  if  a 
people,  in  the  customary  state  of  men's  passions,  should  be 
assailed  by  an  invader,  and  should,  on  a  sudden,  choose  to 
declare  that  they  would  try  whether  Providence  would  pro- 
tect them — of  such  a  people,  we  do  not  say  that  they  would 
experience  protection,  and  that  none  of  them  would  be  killed. 
But  we  say  that  the  evidence  of  experience  is,  that  a  people 
who  habitually  regard  the  obligations  of  Christianity  in  their 
conduct  towards  other  men,,  and  who  steadfastly  refuse, 
through  whatever  consequences,  to  engage  in  acts  of  hos- 
tility, will  experience  protection  in  their  peacefulness :  And 
it  matters  nothing  to  the  argument,  whether  we  refer  that 
protection  to  the  immediate  agency  of  Providence,  or  to  the 
influence  of  such  conduct  upon  the  minds  of  men. 

Such  has  been  the  experience  of  the  unoffending  and  un- 
resisting, in  individual  life.  A  National  example  of  a  re- 
fusal  to  bear  arms,  has  only  once  been  exhibited  to  the 
world  :  But  that  one  example  has  proved,  so  far  as  its  poli- 
tical circumstances  enabled  it  to  prove,  all  that  humanity 
could  desire,  and  all  that  scepticism  could  demand,  in  favour 
of  our  argument. 

It  has  been  the  ordinary  practice  of  those  who  have  colo- 
nized distant  countries,  to  force  a  footing  or  to  maintain  it, 
with  the  sword.  One  of  the  first  objects  has  been  to  build  a 
fort  and  to  provide  a  military.  The  adventurers  became 
soldiers,  and  the  colony  was  a  garrison. — Pennsylvania  was 
however  colonized  by  men  who  believed  that  war  was  abso- 
lutely incompatible  with  Christianity,  and  who  therefore  re- 
solved not  to  practise  it.  Having  determined  not  to  fight, 
they  maintained  no  soldiers  and  possessed  no  arms.  They 
planted  themselves  in  a  country  that  was  surrounded  by  sa- 
vages, and  by  savages  who  knew  they  were  unarmed.  If 
easiness  of  conquest,  or  incapability  of  defence,  could  sub- 
ject them  to  outrage,  the  Pennsylvanians  might  have  been 
the  very  sport  of  violence.  Plunderers  might  have  robbed 
them  without  retaliation,  and  armies  might  have  slaughtered 
them  without  resistance.  If  they  did  not  give  a  temptation 
to  outrage,  no  temptation  could  be  given.     But  these  were 

I 


98 

the  people  who  possessed  their  country  in  security,  whilst 
those  around  them  were  trembling  for  their  existence.  This 
was  a  land  of  peace,  whilst  every  other  was  a  land  of  war. 
The  conclusion  is  inevitable,  although  it  is  extraordinary — 
they  were  in  no  need  of  arms  because  they  would  not  use 
them. 

These  Indians  were  sufficiently  ready  to  commit  outrages 
upon  other  states,  and  often  visited  them  with  desolation  and 
slaughter;  with  that  sort  of  desolation,  and  that  sort  of 
slaughter,  which  might  be  expected  from  men  whom  civili- 
zation had  not  reclaimed  from  cruelty,  and  whom  religion 
had  not  awed  into  forbearance.  "  But  whatever  the  quar- 
rels of  the  Pennsylvanian  Indians  were,  with  others,  they 
uniformly  respected  and  held  as  it  were  sacred,  the  territo- 
tories  of  William  Penn."#  "  The  Pennsylvanians  never 
lost  man,  woman,  or  child  by  them,  which  neither  the  co- 
lony of  Maryland,  nor  that  of  Virginia  could  say,  no  more 
than  the  great  colony  of  New  England."f 

The  security  and  quiet  of  Pennsylvania  was  not  a  tran- 
sient freedom  from  war,  such  as  might  accidentally  happen 
to  any  nation.  She  continued  to  enjoy  it  "  for  more  than 
seventy  years,":):  and  subsisted  in  the  midst  of  six  Indian 
nations,  without  so  much  as  a  militia  for  her  defence."^ 
"  The  Pennsylvanians  became  armed,  though  without  arms; 
they  became  strong,  though  without  strength ;  they  became 
safe,  without  the  ordinary  means  of  safety. — The  constable's 
staff  was  the  only  instrument  of  authority  amongst  them,  for 
the  greater  part  of  a  century,  and  never,  during  the  admin- 
istration of  Penn  or  that  of  his  proper  successors,  was  there 
a  quarrel  or  a  war."|| 

I  cannot  wonder  that  these  people  were  not  molested — 
extraordinary  and  unexampled  as  their  security  was.  There 
is  something  so  noble  in  this  perfect  confidence  in  the  Su- 
preme Protector,  in  this  utter  exclusion  of  "  slavish  fear,"  in 
this  voluntary  relinquishment  of  the  means  of  injury  or  of 
defence,  that  I  do  not  wonder  that  even  ferocity  could  be  dis- 
armed by  such  virtue.  A  people,  generously  living  without 
arms,  amidst  nations  of  warriors !  Who  would  attack  a 
people  such  as  this  ?  There  are  few  men  so  abandoned  as 
not  to  respect  such  confidence.     It  were  a  peculiar  and  an 

*  Clarkson.  f  Oldmixon,  Anno  1708.  \  Proud. 

§  Oldmixon.  ||  Clarkson,  Life  of  Penn. 


99 

unusual  intensity  of  wickedness  that  would  not  even  revere 
it. 

And  when  was  the  security  of  Pennsylvania  molested, 
and  its  peace  destroyed  1 — When  the  men  who  had  directed 
its  counsels  and  icho  would  not  engage  in  war,  were  out- 
voted in  its  legislature  : — when  they  who  supposed  that 
there  was  greater  security  in  the  sword  than  in  Christian- 
ity, became  the  predominating  body.  From  that  hour,  the 
Pennsylvanians  transferred  their  confidence  in  Christian 
principles,  to  a  confidence  in  their  arms ;  and  from  that  hour 
to  the  present  they  have  been  subject  to  war. 

Such  is  the  evidence  derived  from  a  national  example  of 
the  consequences  of  a  pursuit  of  the  Christian  policy  in  re- 
lation to  war.  Here  are  a  people  who  absolutely  refused  to 
fight,  and  who  incapacitated  themselves  for  resistance  by  re- 
fusing to  possess  arms,  and  this  was  the  people  whose  land, 
amidst  surrounding  broils  and  slaughter,  was  selected  as  a 
land  of  security  and  peace.  The  only  national  opportunity 
which  the  virtue  of  the  Christian  world  has  afforded  us  of 
ascertaining  the  safety  of  relying  upon  God  for  defence,  has 
determined  that  it  is  safe. 

If  the  evidence  which  we  possess,  do  not  satisfy  us  of  the 
expediency  of  confiding  in  God,  what  evidence  do  we  ask, 
or  what  can  we  receive  ?  We  have  his  promise  that  he  will 
protect  those  who  abandon  their  seeming  interests  in  the  per- 
formance of  his  will,  and  we  have  the  testimony  of  those 
who  have  confided  in  him,  that  he  has  protected  them.  Can 
the  advocate  of  war  produce  one  single  instance  in  the  his- 
tory of  man,  of  a  person  who  had  given  an  unconditional 
obedience  to  the  will  of  heaven,  and  who  did  not  find  that 
his  conduct  was  wise  as  well  as  virtuous,  that  it  accorded 
with  his  interests  as  well  as  with  his  duty  1  We  ask  the 
same  question  in  relation  to  the  peculiar  obligations  to  irre- 
sistance.  Where  is  the  man  who  regrets,  that  in  obser- 
vance of  the  forbearing  duties  of  Christianity,  he  consigned 
his  preservation  to  the  superintendence  of  God  ? — And  the 
solitary  national  example  that  is  before  us,  confirms  the  tes- 
timony of  private  life ;  for  there  is  sufficient  reason  for  be- 
lieving that  no  nation,  in  modern  ages,  has  possessed  so 
large  a  portion  of  virtue  or  of  happiness,  as  Pennsylvania 
before  it  had  seen  human  blood.  I  would  therefore  repeat 
the  question — What  evidence  do  we  ask,  or  can  we  receive  1 

This  is  the  point  from  which  we  wander — we  do  xot 


100 

BELIEVE  IN    THE    PROVIDENCE    OF    GOD.       When    this  State- 

ment  is  formally  made  to  us,  we  think,  perhaps,  that  it  is 
not  true ;  but  our  practice  is  an  evidence  of  its  truth— for  if 
we  did  believe,  we  should  also  confide  in  it,  and  should  be 
willing  to  stake  upon  it  the  consequences  of  our  obedience.* 
We  can  talk  with  sufficient  fluency  of  "  trusting  in  Provi- 
dence," but  in  the  application  of  it  to  our  conduct  in  life,  we 
know  wonderfully  little,  Who  is  it  that  confides  in  Provi- 
dence, and  for  what  does  he  trust  Him  1  Does  his  confi- 
dence induce  him  to  set  aside  his  own  views  of  interest  and 
safety,  and  simply  to  obey  precepts  which  appear  inexpedi- 
ent and  unsafe  ?  This  is  the  confidence  that  is  of  value,  and 
of  which  we  know  so  little.  There  are  many  who  believe 
that  war  is  disallowed  by  Christianity,  and  who  would  re- 
joice that  it  were  forever  abolished,  but  there  are  few  who 
are  willing  to  maintain  an  undaunted  and  unyielding  stand 
against  it.  They  can  talk  of  the  loveliness  of  peace,  aye, 
and  argue  against  the  lawfulness  of  war,  but  when  difficulty 
or  suffering  would  be  the  consequence,  they  will  not  refuse 
to  do  what  they  know  to  be  unlawful,  they  will  not  practise 
the  peacefulness  which  they  say  they  admire.  Those  who 
are  ready  to  sustain  the  consequences  of  undeviating  obedi- 
ence are  the  supporters  of  whom  Christianity  stands  in 
need.  She  wants  men  who  are  willing  to  suffer  for  her 
principles. 

It  is  necessary  for  us  to  know  by  what  principles  we  are 
governed.  Are  we  regulated  by  the  injunctions  of  God,  or 
are  we  not  ?  If  there  be  any  lesson  of  morality  which  it  is 
of  importance  to  mankind  to  learn,  and  if  there  be  any 
which  they  have  not  yet  learnt,  it  is  the  necessity  of  simply 
performing  the  duties  of  Christianity  without  reference  to 
consequences.  If  we  could  persuade  ourselves  to  do  this, 
we  should  certainly  pass  life  with  greater  consistency  of 
conduct,  and,  as  I  firmly  believe,  in  greater  enjoyment  and 
greater  peace.  The  world  has  had  many  examples  of  such 
fidelity  and  confidence.  Who  have  been  the  Christian  mar- 
tyrs of  all  ages,  but  men  who  maintained  their  fidelity  to 
Christianity  through  whatever  consequences?     They  were 

*  "  The  dread  of  being-  destroyed  by  our  enemies  if  we  do  not 
go  to  war  with  them,  is  a  plain  and  unequivocal  proof  of  our  dis- 
belief in  the  superintendence  of  Divine  Providence.'* — The  Law- 
fulness of  Defensive  War  impartially  considered ;  by  a  Member  of 
the  Church  of  England- 


101 

faithful  to  the  Christian  creed ;  we  ought  to  be  faithful  to  the 
Christian  morality :  without  morality  the  profession  of  a 
creed  is  vain.  Nay,  we  have  seen  that  there  have  been 
martyrs  to  the  duties  of  morality,  and  to  these  very  duties  of 
peacefulness.  The  duties  remain  the  same,  but  where  is  our 
obedience  ? 

I  hope  for  the  sake  of  his  understanding  and  his  heart, 
that  the  reader  will  not  say  I  reason  on  the  supposition  that 
the  world  was,  what  it  is  not ;  and  that  although  these  du- 
ties may  be  binding  upon  us  when  the  world  shall  become 
purer,  yet  that  we  must  now  accommodate  ourselves  to  the 
state  of  things  as  they  are.  This  is  to  say  that  in  a  land  of 
assassins,  assassination  would  be  right.  If  no  one  begins  to 
reform  his  practice,  until  others  have  begun  before  him,  re- 
formation will  never  be  begun.  If  apostles,  or  martyrs,  or 
reformers,  had  "  accommodated  themselves  to  the  existing 
state  of  things,"  where  had  now  been  Christianity  1  The 
business  of  reformation  belongs  to  him  who  sees  that  refor- 
mation is  required.  The  world  has  no  other  human  means 
of  amendment.  If  you  believe  that  war  is  not  allowed  by 
Christianity,  it  is  your  business  to  oppose  it ;  and  if  fear  or 
distrust  should  raise  questions  on  the  consequences,  apply 
the  words  of  our  Saviour — "  What  is  that  to  thee? — Follow 
thou  me." 

Our  great  misfortune  in  the  examination  of  the  duties  of 
Christianity,  is,  that  we  do  not  contemplate  them  with  suffi- 
cient simplicity.  We  do  not  estimate  them  without  some 
addition  or  abatement  of  our  own ;  there  is  almost  always 
some  intervening  medium.  A  sort  of  half-transparent  glass 
is  hung  before  each  individual,  which  possesses  endless 
shades  of  colour  and  degrees  of  opacity,  and  which  presents 
objects  with  endless  varieties  of  distortion.  This  glass  is 
coloured  by  our  education  and  our  passions.  The  business 
of  moral  culture  is  to  render  it  transparent.  The  perfection 
of  the  perceptive  part  of  moral  culture  is  to  remove  it  from 
before  us. — Simple  obedience  without  reference  to  conse- 
quences, is  our  great  duty.  I  know  that  philosophers  have 
told  us  otherwise :  I  know  that  we  have  been  referred,  for 
the  determination  of  our  duties,  to  calculations  of  expediency 
and  of  the  future  consequences  of  our  actions : — but  I  be- 
lieve that  in  whatever  degree  this  philosophy  directs  us  to 
forbear  an  unconditional  obedience  to  the  rules  of  our  reli- 
gion, it  will  be  found,  that  when  Christianity  shall  advance 

i2 


W2 

in  her  purity  and  her  power,  she  will  sweep  it  from  the 
earth  with  the  besom  of  destruction. 

The  positions,  then,  which  we  have  endeavoured  to  esta- 
blish, are  these  :-^- 

I.  That  the  general  character  of  Christianity  is  wholly 
incongruous  with  war,  and  that  its  general  duties  are 
incompatible  with  it. 

II.  That  some  of  the  express  precepts  and  declarations  of 
Jesus  Christ  virtually  forbid  it. 

III.  That  His  practice  is  not  reconcilable  with  the  suppo- 
sition of  its  lawfulness. 

IV.  That  the  precepts  and  practice  of  the  apostles  corres- 
pond with  those  of  our  Lord. 

V.  That  the  primitive  Christians  believed  that  Christ  had 
forbidden  war ;  and  that  some  of  them  suffered  death 
in  affirmance  of  this  belief. 

VI.  That  God  has  declared  in  prophecy,  that  it  is  His 
will  that  war  should  eventually  be  eradicated  from  the 
earth :  and  this  eradication  will  be  effected  by  Chris- 
tianity, by  the  influence  of  its  present  principles. 

VII.  That  those  who  have  refused  to  engage  in  war,  in 
consequence  of  their  belief  of  its  inconsistency  with 
Christianity,  have  found  that  Providence  has  protected 
them. 

Now  we  think  that  the  establishment  of  any  consider- 
able number  of  these  positions  is  sufficient  for  our  argu- 
ment. The  establishment  of  the  whole,  forms  a  body  of 
evidence,  to  which  I  am  not  able  to  believe  that  an  inquirerr 
to  whom  the  subject  was  new,  would  be  able  to  withhold  his 
assent*  But  since  such  an  inquirer  cannot  be  found,  I  would 
invite  the  reader  to  lay  prepossession  aside,  to  suppose  him- 
self to  have  now  first  heard  of  battles  and  slaughter,  and 
dispassionately  to  examine  whether  the  evidence  in  favour  of 
peace  be  not  very  great,  and  whether  the  objections  to  it 
bear  any  proportion  to  the  evidence  itself.  But  whatever 
.may  be  the  determination  upon  this  question,  surely  it  is 
reasonable  to  try  the  experiment  whether  security  cannot  be 
maintained  without  slaughter.  Whatever  be  the  reasons  for 
war,  it  is  certain  that  it  produces  enormous  mischief*  Even 
M-aving  the  obligations  of  Christianity,  we  have  to  choose 
between  evils  that  are  certain,  and  evils  that  are  doubtful ; 
between  the  actual  endurance  of  a  great  calamity,  and  the 
possibility  of  a  less.     It  certainly  cannot  be  proved  that 


103 

peace  would  not  be  the  best  policy ;  and  since  we  know  that 
the  present  system  is  bad,  it  were  reasonable  and  wise  to  try 
whether  the  other  is  not  better.  In  reality,  I  can  scarcely 
conceive  the  possibility  of  greater  evil  than  that  which  man- 
kind now  endure ;  an  evil,  moral  and  physical,  of  far  wider 
extent,  and  far  greater  intensity,  than  our  familiarity  with  it 
allows  us  to  suppose.  If  a  system  of  peace  be  not  productive 
of  less  evil  than  the  system  of  war,  its  consequences  must, 
Indeed,  be  enormously  bad ;  and  that  it  would  produce  such 
consequences,  we  have  no  warrant  for  believing  either  from 
reason  or  from  practice — either  from  the  principles  of  the 
moral  government  of  God,  or  from  the  experience  of  man- 
kind.  Whenever  a  people  shall  pursue,  steadily  and  uni- 
formly, the  pacific  morality  of  the  gospel,  and  shall  do  this 
from  the  pure  motive  of  obedience,  there  is  no  reason  to  fear 
for  the  consequences :  there  is  no  reason  to  fear  that  they 
would  experience  any  evils  such  as  we  now  endure,  or  that 
they  would  not  find  that  Christianity  understands  their  inte- 
rests better  than  themselves ;  and  that  the  surest,  and  the 
only  rule  of  wisdom,  -of  safety,  and  of  expediency,  is  to 
maintain  her  spirit  in  every  circumstance  of  life. 

"  There  is  reason  to  expect,"  says  Dr.  Johnson,  "  that  as 
the  world  is  more  enlightened,  policy  and  morality  will  at 
last  be  reconciled."*  When  this  enlightened  period  shall 
arrive,-  we  shall  be  approaching,  and  we  shall  not  till  then 
approach,  that  era  of  purity  and  of  peace,  when  "  violence 
shall  be  no  more  heard  in  our  land,  wasting  nor  destruction 
within  our  borders" — that  era  in  which  God  has  promised 
that  "  they  shall  not  hurt  nor  destroy  in  all  His  holy  moun- 
tain." That  a  period  like  this  will  come,  I  am  not  able  to 
doubt :  I  believe  it  because  it  is  not  credible  that  He  will  al- 
ways endure  the  butchery  of  man  by  man  ;  because  he  has 
declared  that  he  will  not  endure  it ;  and  because  I  think  there 
is  a  perceptible  approach  of  that  period  in  which  we  will 
say — "It  is  enough."f  In  this  belief  I  rejoice:  I  rejoice 
that  the  number  is  increasing  of  those  who  are  asking, — 
"  Shall  the  sword  devour  for  ever?"  and  of  those,  who,  what- 
ever be  the  opinions  or  the  practice  of  others,  are  openly 
saying,  "  I  am  for  peace.":}: 

Whether  I  have  succeeded  in  establishing  the  position 

*  Falkland's  Islands.  f  2  Sam.  xxiv.  16, 

t  Psalm  cxx.  7. 


104 

THAT  WAR,  OF  EVERY  KIND,  IS  INCOMPATIBLE  WITH  CHRIS- 
TIANITY, it  is  not  my  business  to  determine ;  but  of  this,  at 
least,  I  can  assure  the  reader,  that  I  would  not  have  intruded 
this  inquiry  upon  the  public,  if  I  had  not  believed,  with  un- 
doubting  confidence,  that  the  position  is  accordant  with  ever- 
lasting truth ; — with  that  truth  which  should  regulate  our 
conduct  here,  and  which  will  not  be  superseded  in  the  world 
that  is  to  come. 


PART  III. 


OBSERVATIONS  ON  THE  EFFECTS  OF  WAR. 


War's  least  horror  is  th'  ensanguined  field. — Barbattld, 


There  are  few  maxims  of  more  unfailing  truth  than  that 
"  A  tree  is  known  by  its  fruits ;"  and  I  will  acknowledge 
that  if  the  lawfulness  of  war  were  to  be  determined  by  a  re- 
ference to  its  consequences,  I  should  willingly  consign  it  to 
this  test,  in  the  belief  that,  if  popular  impressions  were  sus- 
pended, a  good,  or  a  benevolent,  or  a  reasoning  man,  would 
find  little  cause  to  decide  in  its  favour. 

In  attempting  to  illustrate  some  of  the  effects  of  war,  it  is 
my  purpose  to  inquire,  not  so  much  into  its  civil  or  political, 
as  into  its  moral  consequences  ;  and  of  the  latter,  to  notice 
those,  chiefly,  which  commonly  obtain  little  of  our  inquiry 
or  attention.  To  speak  strictly,  indeed,  civil  and  political 
considerations  are  necessarily  involved  in  the  moral  ten- 
dency :  for  the  happiness  of  society  is  always  diminished  by 
the  diminution  of  morality ;  and  enlightened  policy  knows 
that  the  greatest  support  of  a  state  is  the  virtue  of  the 
people. 

The  reader  needs  not  be  reminded  of — what  nothing  but 
the  frequency  of  the  calamity  can  make  him  forget — the  in- 
tense sufferings  and  irreparable  deprivations  which  a  battle 
inevitably  entails  upon  private  life.  These  are  calamities  of 
which  the  world  thinks  little,  and  which,  if  it  thought  of  themr 
it  could  not  remove.  A  father  or  a  husband  can  seldom  be 
replaced:  avoid  is  created  in  the  domestic  felicity,  which 


106 

there  is  little  hope  that  the  future  will  fill.  By  the  slaugh- 
ter of  a  war,  there  are  thousands  who  weep  in  unpitied 
and  unnoticed  secrecy,  whom  the  world  does  not  see ;  and 
thousands  who  retire,  in  silence,  to  hopeless  poverty,  for 
whom  it  does  not  care.  To  these,  the  conquest  of  a  king- 
dom is  of  little  importance.  The  loss  of  a  protector  or  a 
friend  is  ill  repaid  by  empty  glory.  An  addition  of  territory 
may  add  titles  to  a  king,  but  the  brilliancy  of  a  crown  throws 
little  light  upon  domestic  gloom.  It  is  not  my  intention  to 
insist  upon  these  calamities,  intense,  and  irreparable,  and 
unnumbered  as  they  are ;  but  those  who  begin  a  war  without 
taking  them  into  their  estimates  of  its  consequences,  must  be 
regarded  as,  at  most,  half-seeing  politicians.  The  legitimate 
object  of  political  measures  is  the  good  of  the  people — and  a 
great  sum  of  good  a  war  must  produce,  if  it  outbalances  even 
this  portion  of  its  mischiefs. 

In  the  more  obvious  effects  of  war,  there  is,  however,  a 
sufficient  sum  of  evil  and  wretchedness.  The  most  dreadful 
of  these  is  the  destruction  of  human  life.  The  frequency 
with  which  this  destruction  is  represented  to  our  minds  has 
almost  extinguished  our  perception  of  its  awfulness  and 
horror.  In  the  interval  between  Anno  1141  and  1815,  our 
country  has  been  at  war  with  France  alone,  two  hundred 
and  sixty-six  years.  If  to  this  we  add  our  wars  with  other 
countries,  probably  we  shall  find  that  one  half  of  the  last  six 
or  seven  centuries  has  been  spent  by  this  country  in  war ! 
A  dreadful  picture  of  human  violence !  There  is  no  means 
of  knowing  how  many  victims  have  been  sacrificed  during 
this  lapse  of  ages.  Those  who  have  fallen  in  battle,  and 
those  who  have  perished  "  in  tents  and  ships,  amidst  damps 
and  putrefaction,"  probably  amount  to  a  number,  greater 
than  the  number  of  men  now  existing  in  France  and  England 
together.  And  where  is  our  equivalent  good? — "  The  wars 
of  Europe,  for  these  two  hundred  years  last  past,  by  the  con- 
fession of  all  parties,  have  really  ended  in  the  advantage  of 
none,  but  to  the  manifest  detriment  of  all."  This  is  the 
testimony  of  the  celebrated  Dr.  Josiah  Tucker,  Dean  of 
Gloucester :  And  Erasmus  has  said,  "  I  know  not  whether 
any  war  ever  succeeded  so  fortunately  in  all  its  events,  but 
that  the  conqueror,  if  he  had  a  heart  to  feel  or  an  under- 
standing to  judge  as  he  ought  to  do,  repented  that  he  had 
ever  engaged  in  it  at  all." 

Since  the  last  war,  we  have  heard  much  of  the  distresses 


107 

of  the  country;  and  whatever  be  the  opinion,  whether  they 
have  been  brought  upon  us  by  the  peace,  none  will  question 
whether  they  have  been  brought  upon  us  by  war.  The 
peace  may  be  the  occasion  of  them,  but  war  has  been  the 
cause.  I  have  no  wish  to  declaim  upon  the  amount  of  our 
national  debt — that  it  is  a  great  evil,  and  that  it  has  been 
brought  upon  us  by  successive  contests,  no  one  disputes. 
Such  considerations  ought,  undoubtedly,  to  influence  the  con- 
duct of  public  men  in  their  disagreements  with  other  states, 
even  if  higher  considerations  do  not  influence  it.  They 
ought  to  form  part  of  the  calculations  of  the  evil  of  hostility. 
I  believe  that  a  greater  mass  of  human  suffering  and  loss  of 
human  enjoyment  are  occasioned  by  the  pecuniary  distresses 
of  a  war,  than  any  ordinary  advantages  of  a  war  compen- 
sate. But  this  consideration  seems  too  remote  to  obtain  our 
notice.  Anger  at  offence,  or  hope  of  triumph,  overpowers 
the  sober  calculations  of  reason,  and  outbalances  the  weight 
of  after  and  long  continued  calamities.  If  the  happiness  of 
the  people  were,  what  it  ought  to  be,  the  primary  and  the 
ultimate  object  of  national  measures,  I  think  that  the  policy 
which  pursued  this  object,  would  often  find  that  even  the 
pecuniary  distresses  resulting  from  a  war  make  a  greater 
deduction  from  the  quantum  of  felicity,  than  those  evils 
which  the  war  may  have  been  designed  to  avoid.  At  least 
the  distress  is  certain ;  the  advantage  doubtful.  It  is  known 
that  during  the  past  eight  years  of  the  present  peace,  a  con- 
siderable portion  of  the  community  have  been  in  suffering  in 
consequence  of  war.  Eight  years  of  suffering  to  a  million 
of  human  creatures,  is  a  serious  thing  !  "  It  is  no  answer 
to  say,  that  this  universal  suffering,  and  even  the  desolation 
that  attends  it,  are  the  inevitable  consequences  and  events  of 
war,  how  warrantably  soever  entered  into,  but  rather  an  ar- 
gument that  no  war  can  be  warrantably  entered  into,  that 
may  produce  such  intolerable  mischiefs."* 

There  is  much  of  truth,  as  there  is  of  eloquence,  in  these 
observations  of  one  of  the  most  acute  intellects  that  our 
country  has  produced : — "It  is  wonderful  with  what  coolness 
and  indifference  the  greater  part  of  mankind  see  war  com- 

*  Lord  Clarendon — who,  however,  excepts  those  wars  which 
are  likely  "  to  introduce  as  much  benefit  to  the  world,  as  damage 
and  inconvenience  to  a  part  of  it. "  The  morality  of  this  cele- 
brated man,  also,  seems  thus  to  have  been  wrecked  upon  the  rock 
of  expediency. 


108 

meiiced.  Those  that  hear  of  it  at  a  distance,  or  read  of*  it  in 
books,  but  have  never  presented  its  evils  to  their  minds,  con- 
sider it  as  little  more  than  a  splendid  game,  a  proclamation, 
an  army,  a  battle,  and  a  triumph.  Some,  indeed,  must 
perish  in  the  most  successful  field ;  but  they  die  upon  the  bed 
of  honour,  resign  their  lives  amidst  the  joys  of  conquest, 
and  filled  with  England's  glory,  smile  in  death.  The  life 
of  a  modern  soldier  is  ill  represented  by  heroic  fiction.  War 
has  means  of  destruction  more  formidable  than  the  cannon 
and  the  sword.  Of  the  thousands  and  ten  thousands  that 
perished  in  our  late  contests  with  France  and  Spain,  a  very 
small  part  ever  felt  the  stroke  of  an  enemy.  The  rest  lan- 
guished in  tents  and  ships,  amidst  damps  and  putrefaction, 
gasping  and  groaning  unpitied  amongst  men  made  obdurate 
by  long  continuance  of  hopeless  misery  ;  and  were  at  last 
whelmed  in  pits,  or  heaved  into  the  ocean,  without  notice, 
and  without  remembrance.  By  incommodious  encampments 
and  unwholesome  stations,  where  courage  is  useless  and  en- 
terprise impracticable,  fleets  are  silently  dispeopled,  and 
armies  sluggishly  melted  away. 

"  Thus  is  a  people  gradually  exhausted  for  the  most  part 
with  little  effect.  The  wars  of  civilized  nations  make  very 
slow  changes  in  the  system  of  empire.  The  public  perceives 
scarcely  any  alteration  but  an  increase  of  debt ;  and  the  few 
individuals  who  are  benefited,  are  not  supposed  to  have  the 
clearest  right  to  their  advantages.  If  he  that  shared  the 
danger,  enjoyed  the  profit,  and  after  bleeding  in  the  battle, 
grew  rich  by  the  victory,  he  might  show  his  gains  without 
envy.  But  at  the  conclusion  of  a  ten  }^ears'  war,  how  are 
we  recompensed  for  the  death  of  multitudes,  and  the  expense 
of  millions,*  but  by  contemplating  the  sudden  glories  of  pay- 
masters and  agents,  and  contractors  and  commissaries, 
whose  equipages  shine  like  meteors,  and  whose  palaces  rise 
like  exhalations? 

"  These  are  the  men,  who  without  virtue,  labour,  or 
hazard,  are  growing  rich  as  their  country  is  impoverished ; 
they  rejoice  when  obstinacy  or  ambition  adds  another  year 
to  slaughter  and  devastation,  and  laugh  from  their  desks  at 
bravery  and  science,  while  they  are  adding  figure  to  figure, 
and  cipher  to  cipher,  hoping  for  a  new  contract  from  a  new 

*  Note  B  B. 


109 

armament,  and  computing  the  profits  of  a  siege  or  a  tem- 
pest."* 

Our  business,  however,  is  principally  with  the  moral 
effects  of  war. 

"  The  tenderness  of  nature,  and  the  integrity  of  manners, 
which  are  driven  away  or  powerfully  discountenanced  by 
the  corruption  of  war,  are  not  quickly  recovered — and  the 
weeds  which  grow  up  in  the  shortest  war,  can  hardly  be 
pulled  up  and  extirpated  without  a  long  and  unsuspected 
peace."—"  War  introduces  and  propagates  opinions  and 
practice  as  much  against  heaven  as  against  earth  ; — it  lays 
our  natures  and  manners  as  waste  as  our  gardens  and  our 
habitations ;  and  we  can  as  easily  preserve  the  beauty  of  the 
one  as  the  integrity  of  the  other,  under  the  cursed  jurisdiction 
of  drums  and  trumpets.""}" 

"  War  does  more  harm  to  the  morals  of  men  than  even  to 
their  property  and  persons. "£  "  It  is  a  temporary  repeal  of 
all  the  principles  of  virtue."§  "  There  is  not  a  virtue  of 
gospel  goodness  but  has  its  death-blow  from  war."j| 

I  do  not  know  whether  the  greater  sum  of  moral  evil  re- 
sulting from  war,  is  suffered  by  those  who  are  immediately 
engaged  in  it,  or  by  the  public.  The  mischief  is  most  ex- 
tensive upon  the  community,  but  upon  the  profession  it  is 
most  intense. 


Rara  fides  pietasque  viris  qui  castra  sequuntur. 

Lucas". 

No  one  pretends  to  applaud  the  morals  of  an  army,  and  for 
its  religion,  few  think  of  it  at  all.  A  soldier  is  depraved  even 
to  a  proverb.  The  fact  is  too  notorious  to  be  insisted  upon, 
that  thousands  who  had  filled  their  stations  in  life  with  pro- 
priety, and  been  virtuous  from  principle,  have  lost,  by  a  mili- 
tary life,  both  the  practice  and  the  regard  of  morality  ;  and 
when  they  have  become  habituated  to  the  vices  of  war,  have 
laughed  at  their  honest  and  plodding  brethren  who  are  still 
spiritless  enough  for  virtue,  or  stupid  enough  for  piety.  The 
vices  which  once  had  shocked  them,  become  the  subject,  not 
of  acquiescence,  but  of  exultation.  "  Almost  all  the  profes- 
sions," says  Dr.  Knox,  "  have  some  characteristic  manners 
which  the  professors  seem  to  adopt  with  little  examination,  as 

*  Johnson — Falkland's  Islands,     f  Lord  Clarendon's  Essays. 

t  Erasmus.  §  Hall.  ||  William  Law,  A.  M. 

K 


110 

necessary  and  as  honourable  distinctions.  It  happens,  un- 
fortunately, that  profligacy,  libertinism,  and  infidelity,  are 
thought,  by  weaker  minds,  almost  as  necessary  a  part  of  a 
soldier's  uniform,  as  his  shoulder-knot.  To  hesitate  at  an  oath, 
to  decline  intoxication,  to  profess  a  regard  for  religion,  would 
be  almost  as  ignominious  as  to  refuse  a  challenge."* 

It  is,  however,  not  necessary  to  insist  upon  the  immoral 
influence  of  war  upon  the  military  character,  since  no  one 
probably  will  dispute  it.  Nor  is  it  difficult  to  discover  how 
the  immorality  is  occasioned.  It  is  obvious  that  those  who 
are  continually  engaged  in  a  practice,  "  in  which  almost  all 
the  vices  are  incorporated,"  and  who  promote  this  practice 
with  individual  eagerness,  cannot,  without  the  intervention  of 
a  miracle,  be  otherwise  than  collectively  depraved. 

If  the  soldier  engages  in  the  destruction  of  his  species,  he 
should  at  least  engage  in  it  with  reluctance,  and  abandon  it 
with  joy.  The  slaughter  of  his  fellow  men  should  be  dread- 
ful in  execution  and  in  thought.  But  what  is  his  aversion  or 
reluctance  ?  He  feels  none — it  is  not  even  a  subject  of  serious- 
ness to  him.  He  butchers  his  fellow  candidates  for  heaven, 
as  a  woodman  fells  a  coppice ;  with  as  little  reluctance,  and 
as  little  regret. 

Those  who  will  compute  the  tendency  of  this  familiarity 
with  human  destruction,  cannot  doubt  whether  it  will  be  per- 
nicious to  the  moral  character.  What  is  the  hope,  that  he 
who  is  familiar  with  murder,  who  has  himself  often  perpe- 
trated it,  and  who  exults  in  the  perpetration,  will  retain  unde- 
praved  the  principles  of  virtue?  His  moral  feelings  are 
blunted  :  His  moral  vision  is  obscured.  We  say  his  moral 
vision  is  obscured ;  for  we  do  not  think  it  possible  that  he 
should  retain  even  the  perception  of  Christian  purity.  The 
soldier,  again,  who  plunders  the  citizen  of  another  nation 
without  remorse  or  reflection,  and  bears  away  the  spoil  with 
triumph,  will  inevitably  lose  something' of  his  principles  of 
probity.  These  principles  are  shaken ;  an  inroad  is  made 
upon  their  integrity,  and  it  is  an  inroad  that  makes  after  in- 
roads the  more  easy.  Mankind  do  not  generally  resist  the 
influence  of  habit.  If  we  rob  and  shoot  those  who  are 
"  enemies"  to-day,  we  are  in  some  degree  prepared  to  shoot 
and  rob  those  who  are  not  enemies  to-morrow.    The  strength 

*  Essays. — No.  19.  Knox  justly  makes  much  exception  to  the 
applicability  of  these  censures. 


Ill 

of  the  restraining  moral  principle  is  impaired.  Law  may, 
indeed,  still  restrain  us  from  violence ;  but  the  power  and 
efficiency  of  principle  is  diminished.  And  this  alienation  of 
the  mind  from  the  practice,  the  love,  and  the  perception  of 
Christian  purity,  therefore,  of  necessity,  extends  its  influence 
to  the  other  circumstances  of  life ;  and  it  is  hence,  in  part, 
that  the  general  profligacy  of  armies  arises.  That  which  we 
have  not  practised  in  war  we  are  little  likely  to  practise  in 
peace ;  and  there  is  no  hope  that  we  shall  possess  the  good- 
ness which  we  neither  love  nor  perceive. 

Another  means  by  which  war  becomes  pernicious  to  the 
moral  character  of  the  soldier,  is  the  incapacity  which  the 
profession  occasions  for  the  sober  pursuits  of  life.  "  The 
profession  of  a  soldier,"  says  Dr.  Paley,  "  almost  always  un- 
fits men  for  the  business  of  regular  occupations."  On  the 
question,  whether  it  be  better  that  of  three  inhabitants  of  a 
village,  one  should  be  a  soldier  and  two  husbandmen,  or  that 
all  should  occasionally  become  both,  he  says,  that  from  the 
latter  arrangement  the  country  receives  three  raw  militia- 
men and  three  idle  and  profligate  peasants.*  War  cannot 
be  continual.  Soldiers  must  sometimes  become  citizens  :  and 
citizens  who  are  unfit  for  stated  business  will  be  idle ;  and 
they  who  are  idle  will  scarcely  be  virtuous.  A  political  pro- 
ject, therefore,  such  as  a  war,  which  will  eventually  pour  fifty 
or  a  hundred  thousand  of  such  men  upon  the  community, 
must  of  necessity  be  an  enormous  evil  to  a  state.  It  were 
an  infelicitous  defence  to  say,  that  soldiers  do  not  become  idle 
until  the  war  is  closed,  or  they  leave  the  army. — To  keep 
men  out  of  idleness  by  employing  them  in  cutting  other  men's 
limbs  and  bodies,  is  at  least  an  extraordinary  economy ;  and 
the  profligacy  still  remains ;  for,  unhappily,  if  war  keeps 
soldiers  busy,  it  does  not  keep  them  good. 

By  a  peculiar  and  unhappy  coincidence,  the  moral  evil 
attendant  upon  the  profession  is  perpetuated  by  the  after 
system  of  half -pay.  We  have  no  concern  with  this  system 
on  political  or  pecuniary  considerations ;  but  it  will  be  ob- 
vious that  those  who  return  from  war,  with  the  principles 
and  habits  of  war,  are  little  likely  to  improve  either  by  a 
life  without  necessary  occupation  or  express  object.  By 
this  system,  there  are  thousands  of  men  in  the  prime,  or 
in  the  bloom  of  life,  who  live  without  such  object  or  oc- 

*  Note  C  C. 


112 

cupation.  This  would  be  an  evil,  if  it  happened  to  any 
set  of  men,  but  upon  men  who  have  been  soldiers  the  evil 
is  peculiarly  intense.  He  whose  sense  of  moral  obligation 
has  been  impaired  by  the  circumstances  of  his  former  life, 
and  whose  former  life  has  induced  habits  of  disinclination 
to  regular  pursuits,  is  the  man  who,  above  all  others,  it  is 
unfortunate  for  the  interests  of  purity  should  be  supported  on 
"  half-pay."  If  war  have  occasioned  "  unfitness  for  regular 
occupations,"  he  will  not  pursue  them  ;  if  it  have  familiarized 
him  with  profligacy,  he  will  be  little  restrained  by  virtue. 
And  the  consequences  of  consigning  men  under  such  circum- 
stances to  society,  at  a  period  of  life  when  the  mind  is  busy 
and  restless  and  the  passions  are  strong,  must,  of  inevitable 
necessity,  be  bad. — The  officer  who  leaves  the  army  with 
the  income  only  which  the  country  allows  him,  often  finds 
sufficient  difficulty  in  maintaining  the  character  of  a  gentle- 
man. A  gentleman,  however,  he  will  be ;  and  he  who  re- 
solves to  appear  rich  whilst  he  is  poor,  who  will  not  increase 
his  fortune  by  industry,  and  who  has  learnt  to  have  few  re- 
straints from  principle,  sometimes  easily  persuades  himself  to 
pursue  schemes  of  but  very  exceptionable  probity.  Indeed, 
by  his  peculiar  law,  the  "  law  of  honour,"  honesty  is  not 
required. 

I  do  not  know  whether  it  be  politic  that  he  who  has  held 
a  commission  should  not  be  expected  to  use  a  ledger  or  a 
yard  ;  but  since,  by  thus  becoming  a  "  military  gentleman," 
the  number  is  increased  of  those  who  regulate  their  conduct 
by  the  law  of  honour,  the  rule  is  necessarily  pernicious  in 
its  effects.  When  it  is  considered  that  this  law  allows  of 
"  profaneness,  neglect  of  public  worship  and  private  devotion, 
cruelty  to  servants,  rigorous  treatment  of  tenants  or  other 
dependants,  want  of  charity  to  the  poor,  injuries  to  trades- 
men by  insolvency  or  delay  of  payment,  with  numberless 
examples  of  the  same  kind  ;"  that  it  is,  "  in  most  instances, 
favourable  to  the  licentious  indulgence  of  the  natural  pas- 
sions ;"  that  it  allows  of  adultery,  drunkenness,  prodigality, 
duelling,  and  of  revenge  in  the  extreme"* — when  all  this  is 
considered,  it  is  manifestly  inevitable,  that  those  who  regulate 
their  conduct  by  the  maxims  of  such  a  law,  must  become,  as 
a  body,  reduced  to  a  low  station  in  the  scale  of  morality.f 

*  Dr.  Pate}-. 

}-  There  is  something  very  unmanly  and  cowardly  in  some  of 
the  maxims  of  this  law  of  honour.    How  unlike  the  fortitude,  the 


113 

We  insist  upon  these  things  because  they  are  the  conse- 
quences of  war*  We  have  no  concern  with  "  half  pay,"  or 
with  the  "  law  of  honour  ;"#  but  with  war,  which  extends 
the  evil  of  the  one,  and  creates  the  evil  of  the  other.  Sol- 
diers may  be  depraved — and  part  of  their  depravity  is,  un- 
doubtedly, their  crime,  but  part  also  is  their  misfortune. 
The  whole  evil  is  imputable  to  war ;  and  we  say  that  this 
evil  forms  a  powerful  evidence  against  it,  whether  we  direct 
that  evidence  to  the  abstract  question  of  its  lawfulness  or  to 
the  practical  question  of  its  expediency.  That  can  scarcely 
be  lawful,  which  necessarily  occasions  such  enormous  de- 
pravity. That  can  scarcely  be  expedient,  which  is  so  per- 
nicious to  virtue,  and  therefore  to  the  state. 

The  economy  of  war  requires  of  every  soldier,  an  implicit 
submission  to  his  superior ;  and  this  submission  is  required 
of  every  gradation  of  rank  to  that  above  it.  This  system 
may  be  necessary  to  hostile  operations,  but  I  think  it  is  un- 
questionably adverse  to  intellectual  and  moral  excellence. 

The  very  nature  of  unconditional  obedience  implies  the 
relinquishment  of  the  use  of  the  reasoning  powers.  Little 
more  is  required  of  the  soldier  than  that  he  be  obedient  and 
brave.  His  obedience  is  that  of  an  animal,  which  is  moved 
by  a  goad  or  a  bit,  without  judgment  or  volition  of  his  own  ; 
and  his  bravery  is  that  of  a  mastiff  which  fights  whatever 
mastiff  others  put  before  him. — It  is  obvious  that  in  such 
agency,  the  intellect  and  the  understanding  have  little  part. 
Now  I  think  that  this  is  important.  He  who,  with  whatever 
motive,  resigns  the  direction  of  his  conduct  implicitly  to 
another,  surely  cannot  retain  that  erectness  and  indepen- 
dence of  mind,  that  manly  consciousness  of  mental  freedom, 
which  is  one  of  the  highest  privileges  of  our  nature.  The 
rational  being  becomes  reduced  in  the  intellectual  scale  :  an 
encroachment  is  made  upon  the  integrity  of  its  indepen- 
dence.    God  has  given  us,  individually,  capacities  for  the 

manliness  of  real  courage,  are  the  motives  of  him  who  fights  a 
duel!  He  accepts  a  challenge,  commonly  because  he  is  afraid  to 
refuse  it.  The  question  with  him  is,  whether  he  fears  more,  a 
pistol  or  the  world's  dread  frown  ,•  and  his  conduct  is  determined 
by  the  preponderating  influence  of  one  of  these  objects  of  fear. 
If  I  am  told  that  he  probably  feels  no  fear  of  death ;  I  answer,  that 
if  he  fears  not  the  death  of  a  duellist,  his  principles  have  sunk  to 
that  abyss  of  depravity,  whence  nothing  but  the  interposition  of 
Omnipotence  is  likely  to  reclaim  them. 
*  Note  D  D. 

K2 


114 

regulation  of  our  individual  conduct.  To  resign  its  direc- 
tion, therefore,  to  the  despotism  of  another,  appears  to  be  an 
unmanly  and  unjustifiable  relinquishment  of  the  privileges 
which  he  has  granted  to  us.  Referring  simply  to  the  con- 
clusions of  reason,  I  think  those  conclusions  would  be  that 
military  obedience  must  be  pernicious  to  the  mind.  And  if 
we  proceed  from  reasoning  to  facts,  I  believe  that  our  con- 
clusions will  be  confirmed.  Is  the  military  character  dis- 
tinguished by  intellectual  eminence?  Is  it  not  distinguished 
by  intellectual  inferiority  ?  I  speak,  of  course,  of  the  exer- 
cise of  intellect ;  and  I  believe  that  if  we  look  around  us,  we 
shall  find  that  no  class  of  men,  in  a  parallel  rank  in  society, 
exercise  it  less,  or  less  honourably  to  human  nature,  than 
the  military  profession.*  I  do  not,  however,  attribute  the 
want  of  intellectual  excellence,  solely  to  the  implicit  submis- 
sions of  a  military  life.  Nor  do  I  say  that  this  want  is  so 
much  the  fault  of  the  soldier,  as  of  the  circumstances  to 
which  he  is  subjected.  We  attribute  this  evil,  also,  to  its 
rightful  parent.  The  resignation  of  our  actions  to  the  direc- 
tion of  a  foreign  will,  is  made  so  familiar  to  us  by  war,  and 
is  mingled  with  so  many  associations  which  reconcile  it,  that 
I  am  afraid  lest  the  reader  should  not  contemplate  it  with 
sufficient  abstraction. — Let  him  remember  that  in  nothing 
but  in  war  do  we  submit  to  it. 

It  becomes  a  subject  yet  more  serious,  if  military  obedi- 
ence requires  the  relinquishment  of  our  moral  agency,  if  it 
requires  us  to  do,  not  only  what  may  be  opposed  to  our  will, 
but  what  is  opposed  to  our  consciences.  And  it  does  require 
this  ;  a  soldier  must  obey,  how  criminal  soever  the  command, 
and  how  criminal  soever  he  knows  it  to  be.  It  is  certain 
that  of  those  who  compose  armies,  many  commit  actions 
which  they  believe  to  be  wicked,  and  which  they  would  not 
commit  but  for  the  obligations  of  a  military  life.  Although 
a  soldier  determinately  believes  that  the  war  is  unjust,  al- 

*  This  inferiority  will,  probably,  be  found 'less  conspicuous  in 
the  private  than  in  his  superiors.  Employment  in  different  situa- 
tions, or  in  foreign  countries,  and  the  consequent  acquisition  of 
information,  often  make  the  private  soldier  superior  in  intelli- 
gence to  labourers  and  mechanics;  a  cause  of  superiority,  which, 
of  course,  does  not  similarly  operate  amongst  men  of  education. 

We  would  here  beg  the  reader  to  bear  in  his  recollection,  the 
limitations  which  are  stated  in  the  preface,  respecting  the  appli- 
cation of  any  apparent  severity  in  our  remarks. 


115 

thouo-h  he  is  convinced  that  his  particular  part  of  the  service 
is  atrociously  criminal,  still  he  must  proceed — he  must  pro- 
secute the  purposes  of  injustice  or  robbery;  he  must  partici- 
pate in  the  guilt  and  be  himself  a  robber.  When  we  have 
sacrificed  thus  much  of  principle,  what  do  we  retain?  If  we 
abandon  all  use  of  our  perceptions  of  good  and  evil,  to  what 
purpose  has  the  capacity  of  perception  been  given  ?  It  were 
as  well  to  possess  no  sense  of  right  and  wrong,  as  to  prevent 
ourselves  from  the  pursuit  or  rejection  of  them.  To  abandon 
some  of  the  most  exalted  privileges  which  Heaven  has  grant- 
ed to  mankind,  to  refuse  the  acceptance  of  them,  and  to 
throw  them  back,  as  it  were,  upon  the  Donor,  is  surely  little 
other  than  profane.  He  who  hid  a  talent,  was,  of  old, 
punished  for  his  wickedness — what  then  is  the  offence  of 
him  who  refuses  to  receive  it  1  Such  a  resignation  of  our 
moral  agency  is  not  contended  for  or  tolerated  in  any  one 
other  circumstance  of  human  life.  War  stands  upon  this 
pinnacle  of  depravity  alone.  She,  only,  in  the  supremacy 
of  crime,  has  told  us  that  she  has  abolished  even  the  obliga- 
tion to  be  virtuous. 

To  what  a  situation  is  a  rational  and  responsible  being  re- 
duced, who  commits  actions,  good  or  bad,  mischievous  or 
beneficial  at  the  word  of  another  !  I  can  conceive  no  greater 
degradation.  It  is  the  lowest,  the  final  abjectness  of  the 
moral  nature.  It  is  this  if  we  abate  the  glitter  of  war,  and 
if  we  add  this  glitter  it  is  nothing  more.  Surely  the  dignity 
of  reason,  and  the  light  of  revelation,  and  our  responsibility 
to.  God,  should  make  us  pause  before  we  become  the  volun- 
tary subjects  of  this  monstrous  system. 

I  do  not  know,  indeed,  under  what  circumstances  of  re- 
sponsibility a  man  supposes  himself  to  be  placed,  who  thus 
abandons  and  violates  his  own  sense  of  rectitude  and  of  his 
duties.  Either  he  is  responsible  for  his  actions  or  he  is 
not ;  and  the  question  is  a  serious  one  to  determine.  Chris- 
tianity has  certainly  never  stated  any  cases  in  which  perso- 
nal responsibility  ceases.  If  she  admits  such  cases,  she  has 
at  least  not  told  us  so ;  but  she  has  told  us,  explicitly  and 
repeatedly,  that  she  does  require  individual  obedience  and 
impose  individual  responsibility.  She  has  made  no  excep- 
tions to  the  imperativeness  of  her  obligations,  whether  we 
are  required  to  neglect  them  or  not ;  and  I  can  discover  in 
her  sanctions,  no  reason  to  suppose  that  in  her  final  adjudi- 
cations she  admits  the  plea  that  another  required  us  to  do 


116 

that  which  she  required  us  to  forbear.-* -But  it  may  be 
feared,  it  may  be  believed,  that  how  little  soever  religion 
will  abate  of  the  responsibility  of  those  who  obey,  she  will 
impose  not  a  little  upon  those  who  command.  They,  at  least, 
are  answerable  for  the  enormities  of  war;  unless,  indeed, 
any  one  shall  tell  me  that  responsibility  attaches  no  where, 
that  that  which  would  be  wickedness  in  another  man,  is  in- 
nocence in  a  soldier,  and  that  Heaven  has  granted  to  the 
directors  of  war,  a  privileged  immunity,  by  virtue  of  which 
crime  incurs  no  guilt  and  receives  no  punishment. 

It  appears  to  me  that  the  obedience  which  war  exacts  to 
arbitrary  power,  possesses  more  of  the  character  of  servility 
and  even  of  slavery,  than  we  are  accustomed  to  suppose ;  and 
as  I  think  this  consideration  may  reasonably  affect  our  feeling 
of  independence,  how  little  soever  higher  considerations  may 
affect  our  consciences,  I  would  allow  myself  in  a  few  sen- 
tences upon  the  subject.  I  will  acknowledge  that  when  I  see 
a  company  of  men  in  a  stated  dress,  and  of  a  stated  colour, 
ranged,  rank  and  file,  in  the  attitude  of  obedience,  turning 
or  walking  at  the  word  of  another,  now  changing  the  posi- 
tion of  a  limb  and  now  altering  the  angle  of  a  foot,  I  feel 
humiliation  and  shame.  I  feel  humiliation  and  shame  when 
1  think  of  the  capacities  and  the  prospects  of  man,  at  seeing 
him  thus  drilled  into  obsequiousness  and  educated  into  ma- 
chinery. I  do  not  know  whether  I  shall  be  charged  with 
indulging  in  idle  sentiment  or  idler  affectation.  If  I  hold 
unusual  language  upon  the  subject,  let  it  be  remembered 
that  the  subject  is  itself  unusual.  I  will  retract  my  affecta- 
tion and  sentiment,  if  the  reader  will  show  me  any  case  in 
life  parallel  to  that  to  which  I  have  applied  it. 

No  one  questions  whether  military  power  be  arbitrary. 
That  which  governs  an  army,  says  Paley,  is  despotism  : 
and  the  subjects  of  despotic  power  we  call  slaves.  Yet  a  man 
may  live  under  an  arbitrary  prince  with  only  the  liability 
to  slavery ;  he  may  live  and  die,  unmolested  in  his  person 
and  unrestrained  in  his  freedom.  But  the  despotism  of  an 
army  is  an  operative  despotism,  and  a  soldier  is  practically 
and  personally  a  slave.  Submission  to  arbitrary  authority 
is  the  business  of  his  life :  the  will  of  the  despot  is  his  rule 
of  action. 

It  is  vain  to  urge  that  if  this  be  slavery,  every  one  who 
labours  for  another  is  a  slave ;  because  there  is  a  difference 
between  the  subjection  of  a  soldier  and  that  of  all  other  Ja~ 


117 

bourers,  in  which  the  essence  of  slavery  consists.  If  I  order 
my  servant  to  do  a  given  action,  he  is  at  liberty,  if  he  think 
the  action  improper,  or  if,  from  any  other  cause,  he  choose 
not  to  do  it,  to  refuse  his  obedience.  I  can  discharge  him 
from  my  service  indeed,  but  I  cannot  compel  obedience  or 
punish  his  refusal.  The  soldier  is  thus  punished  or  com- 
pelled. It  matters  not  whether  he  have  entered  the  service 
voluntarily  or  involuntarily :  being  there,  he  is  required  to 
do  what  may  be,  and  what  in  fact  often  is,  opposed  to  his 
will  and  his  judgment.  If  he  refuse  obedience  he  is  dread- 
fully punished ;  his  flesh  is  lacerated  and  torn  from  his  body, 
and  finally,  if  he  persist  in  his  refusal,  he  may  be  shot. 
Neither  is  he  permitted  to  leave  the  service.  His  natural 
right  to  go  whither  he  would,  of  which  nothing  but  his  own 
crimes  otherwise  depiives  him,  is  denied  to  him  by  war.  If 
he  attempt  to  exercise  this  right  he  is  pursued  as-a  felon,  he 
is  brought  back  in  irons,  and  is  miserably  tortured  for  "  de- 
sertion."    This,  therefore,  we  think  is  slavery. 

I  have  Iieard  it  contended  that  an  apprentice  is  a  stave 
equally  with  a  soldier ;  but  it  appears  to  be  forgotten  that  an 
apprentice  is  consigned  to  the  government  of  another  because 
he  is  not  able  to  govern  himself.  But  even  were  apprentice- 
ship to  continue  through  life,  it  would  serve  the  objection  but 
little.  Neither  custom  nor  law  allows  a  master  to  require 
his  apprentice  to  do  an  immoral  action.  There  is  nothing 
in  his  authority  analogous  to  that  which  compels  a  soldier  to 
do  what  he  is  persuaded  is  wicked  or  unjust.  Neither,  again, 
can  a  master  compel  the  obedience  of  an  apprentice  by  the 
punishments  cf  a  soldier.  Even  if  his  commands  be  rea- 
sonable, he  cannot,  for  refractoriness,  torture  him  into  a 
swoon  and  then  revive  him  with  stimulants  only  to  torture 
him  again;  still  less  can  he  take  him  to  a  field  and  shoot 
him.  And  if  the  command  be  vicious,  he  may  not  punish 
his  disobedience  at  all. — Bring  the  despotism  that  governs 
an  army  into  the  government  of  the  state,  and  what  would 
Englishmen  say7?  They  would  say,  with  one  voice,  that 
Englishmen  were  slaves. 

If  this  view  of  military  subjection  fail  to  affect  our  pride, 
we  are  to  attribute  the  failure  to  that  power  of  public  opinion 
by  which  all  things  seem  reconcilable  to  us ;  by  which  situ- 
ations that  would  otherwise  be  loathsome  and  revolting,  are 
made  not  only  tolerable  but  pleasurable.  Take  away  the 
influence  and  the  gloss  of  public  opinion  from  the  situation  of 


118 

a  soldier,  and  what  should  we  call  it  1  We  should  call  it  a 
state  of  insufferable  degradation ;  of  pitiable  slavery.  But 
public  opinion,  although  it  may  influence  notions  cannot  alter 
things.  Whatever  may  be  our  notion  of  the  soldier's  situa- 
tion, he  has  indisputably  resigned  both  his  moral  and  his 
natural  liberty  to  the  government  of  despotic  power.  He  has 
added  to  ordinary  slavery,  the  slavery  of  the  conscience ; 
and  he  is  therefore,  in  a  twofold  sense,  a  slave. 

If  I  be  asked  why  I  thus  complain  of  the  nature  of  mili* 
tary  obedience,  I  answer,  with  Dr.  Watson,  that  all  "  des- 
potism is  an  offence  against  natural  justice ;  it  is  a  degrada- 
tion of  the  dignity  of  man,  and  ought  not,  on  any  occasion, 
to  be  either  practised  or  submitted  to  :"— -I  answer  that  the 
obedience  of  a  soldier  does,  in  point  of  fact,  depress  the 
erectness  and  independence  of  his  mind ; — I  answer,  again, 
that  it  is  a  sacrifice  of  his  moral  agency,  which  impairs  and 
vitiates  his  principles,  and  which  our  religion  emphatically 
condemns ;  and,  finally  and  principally  I  answer,  that  such 
obedience  is  not  defended  or  permitted  for  any  other  purpose 
than  the  prosecution  of  war,  and  that  it  4is  therefore  a  pow- 
erful evidence  against  the  solitary  system  that  requires  it.  I 
do  not  question  the  necessity  of  despotism  to  war  :  it  is  be- 
cause I  know  that  it  is  necessary  that  I  thus  refer  to  it ;  for 
I  say  that  whatever  makes  such  despotism  and  consequent 
degradation  and  vice  necessary,  must  itself  be  bad,  and 
must  be  utterly  incompatible  with  the  principles  of  Christi- 
anity.* 

Yet  I  do  not  know  whether,  in  its  effects  on  the  military 
character,  the  greatest  moral  evil  of  war  is  to  be  sought. 
Upon  the  community  its  effects  are  indeed  less  apparent,  be- 
cause they  who  are  the  secondary  subjects  of  the  immoral 
influence  are  less  intensely  affected  by  it  than  the  immediate 
agents  of  its  diffusion.  But  whatever  is  deficient  in  the  de- 
gree of  evil,  is  probably  more  than  compensated  by  its  ex- 
tent. The  influence  is  like  that  of  a  continual  and  noxious 
vapour ;  we  neither  regard  nor  perceive  it,  but  it  secretly 
undermines  the  moral  health. 

*  I  would  scarcely  refer  to  the  monstrous  practice  of  impress- 
ing" seamen,  bacause  there  are  many  who  deplore  and  many  who 
condemn  it.  Whether  this  also  be  necessary  to  war,  I  know  not : 
probably  it  is  necessary  ;  and  if  it  be,  I  would  ask  no  other  evi- 
dence against  the  system  that  requires  it.  Such  an  invasion  of 
the  natural  rig-tits  of  man,  such  a  monstrous  assumption  of  arbi* 


119 

Every  one  knows  that  vice  is  contagious.  The  depravity 
of  one  man  has  always  a  tendency  to  deprave  his  neighbours ; 
and  it  therefore  requires  no  unusual  acuteness  to  discover, 
that  the  prodigious  mass  of  immorality  and  crime,  which  are 
accumulated  by  a  war,  must  have  a  powerful  effect  in  "de- 
moralizing" the  public.  But  there  is  one  circumstance  con- 
nected with  the  injurious  influence  of  war,  which  makes  it 
peculiarly  operative  and  malignant.  It  is,  that  we  do  not 
hate  or  fear  the  influence,  and  do  not  fortify  ourselves 
against  it.  Other  vicious  influences  insinuate  themselves 
into  our  minds  by  stealth ;  but  this  we  receive  with  open 
embrace.  If  a  felon  exhibits  an  example  of  depravity  and 
outrage,  we  are  little  likely  to  be  corrupted  by  it;  because 
we  do  not  love  his  conduct  or  approve  it.  But  from  what- 
ever cause  it  happens,  the  whole  system  of  war  is  the  subject 
of  our  complacency  or  pleasure ;  and  it  is  therefore  that  its 
mischief  is  so  immense.  If  the  soldier  who  is  familiarized 
with  slaughter  and  rejoices  in  it,  loses  some  of  his  Christian 
dispositions,  the  citizen  who,  without  committing  the  slaugh- 
ter, unites  in  the  exultation,  loses  also  some  of  his.  If  he 
who  ravages  a  city  and  plunders  its  inhabitants,  impairs  his 
principles  of  probity,  he  who  approves  and  applauds  the  out- 
rage, loses  ako  something  of  his  integrity  or  benevolence. 
We  acknowledge  these  truths  when  applied  to  other  cases. 
It  is  agreed  that  a  frequency  of  capital  punishments  has  a 
tendency  to  make  the  people  callous,  to  harden  them  against 
human  suffering,  and  to  deprave  their  moral  principles. 
And  the  same  effect  will  necessarily  be  produced  by  war,  of 
which  the  destruction  of  life  is  incomparably  greater,  and  of 
which  our  abhorrence  is  incomparably  less. — The  simple 
truth  is  that  we  are  gratified  and  delighted  with  things  which 
are  incompatible  with  Christianity,  and  that  our  minds  there- 
fore become  alienated  from  its  love.  Our  affections  cannot 
be  fully  directed  to  "  two  masters."  If  we  love  and  delight 
in  war,  we  are  little  likely  to  love  and  delight  in  the  dispo- 
sitions of  Christianity. — And  the  evil  is  in  its  own  nature  Of 
almost  universal  operation.  During  a  war,  a  whole  people 
become  familiarized  with  the  utmost  excesses  of  enormity — ■ 
with  the  utmost  intensity  of  human  wickedness — and  they 
rejoice  and  exult  in  them;  so  that  there  is  probably  not  an 

trary  power,  such  a  violation  of  every  principle  of  justice,  can- 
not possibly  be  necessary  to  any  system  of  which  Christianity 
approves. 


120 

Individual  in  a  hundred  who  does  not  lose  something  of  his 
Christian  principles  by  a  ten  years'  war. 

The  effect  of  the  system  in  preventing  the  perception,  the 
love,  and  the  operation  of  Christian  principles,  in  the  minds 
of  men  who  know  the  nature  and  obligations  of  them,  needs 
little  illustration.  We  often  see  that  Christianity  cannot  ac- 
cord with  the  system,  but  the  conviction  does  not  often 
operate  on  our  minds.  In  one  of  the  speeches  of  Bishop 
Watson  in  the  House  of.  Lords,  there  occur  these  words : — 
"  Would  to  God,  my  lords,  that  the  spirit  of  the  Christian 
religion  would  exert  its  influence  over  the  hearts  of  indi- 
viduals in  their  public  capacity ;  then  would  revenge,  avarice, 
and  ambition,  which  have  fattened  the  earth  with  the  blood 
of  her  children,  be  banished  from  the  counsels  of  princes  and 
there  would  be  no  more  War.  The  time  will  come — the 
prophet  hath  said  it  and  I  believe  it—the  time  will  assuredly 
come  when  nation,  literally  speaking,  shall  no  longer  lift  up 
sword  against  nation.— No  man  will  rejoice,  my  lords,  more 
than  I  shall,  to  see  the  time  when  peace  shall  depend  on  an 
obedience  to  the  benevolent  principles  of  the  gospel."*  This 
is  language  becoming  a  Christian.  Would  it  have  been  be-, 
lieved  that  this  same  man  voluntarily  and  studiously  added 
almost  one  half  to  the  power  of  gunpowder,  in  order  that  the 
ball  which  before  would  kill  but  six  men,  might  now  kill  ten 
■ — and  that  he  did  this,  knowing  that  its  purpose  was  to  spread 
wider  destruction  and  bloodier  slaughter?  Above  all,  would 
it  be  believed  that  he  recorded  this  achievement  as  an  evi- 
dence of  his  sagacity,  and  that  he  recorded  it  in  the  book 
which  Contains  the  declaration  I  have  quoted  ? 

The  same  consequences  attach  to  the  influence  of  the  sol- 
dier's personal  character.  Whatever  that  character  be,  if  it 
arise  out  of  his  profession,  we  seldom  regard  it  with  repulsion. 
We  look  upon  him  as  a  man  whose  honour  and  spirit  com- 
pensate for  "  yenial  errors."  If  he  be  spirited  and  gallant, 
we  ask  not  for  his  virtue  and  care  not  for  his  profligacy. 
We  look  upon  the  sailor  as  a  brave  and  noble  fellow,  who 
may  reasonably  be  allowed  in  droll  profaneness,  and  sailor- 
like debaucheries — debaucheries,  which,  in  the  paid-offcrew 
of  a  man-of-war,  seem  sometimes  to  be  animated  by 

the  dissolutest  Spirit  that  fell, 


The  fleshliest  Incubus, 

*  Life  of  Bishop  Watson. 


121 

We  are,  however,  much  diverted  by  them.  The  sailor's 
cool  and  clumsy  vices  are  very  amusing  to  us ;  and  so  that 
he  amuses  us  we  are  indifferent  to  his  crimes.  That  some 
men  should  be  wicked,  is  bad — that  the  many  should  feel 
complacency  in  wickedness,  is,  perhaps,  worse.  We  may 
flatter  ourselves  with  dreams  of  our  own  virtue,  but  that  vir- 
tue is  very  questionable — those  principles  are  very  unopera- 
tive,  which  permit  us  to  receive  pleasure  from  the  contempla- 
tion of  human  depravity,  with  whatever  "  honour  or  spirit" 
that  depravity  is  connected.  Such  principles  and  virtue  will 
oppose,  at  any  rate,  little  resistance  to  temptation.  An  ab- 
horrence of  wickedness  is  more  than  an  outwork  of  the 
moral  citadel.  He  that  does  not  hate  vice  has  opened  a 
passage  for  its  entrance.* 

I  do  not  think  that  those  who  feel  an  interest  in  the  virtue 
and  the  happiness  of  the  world  will  regard  the  animosity  of 
party  and  the  restlessness  of  resentment  which  are  produced 
by  a  war,  as  trifling  evils.  If  any  thing  be  opposite  to 
Christianity  it  is  retaliation  and  revenge.  In  the  obligation 
to  restrain  these  dispositions,  much  of  the  characteristic  pla- 
cability of  Christianity  consists.  The  very  essence  and 
spirit  of  our  religion  are  abhorrent  from  resentment. — The 
very  essence  and  spirit  of  war  are  promotive  of  resentment ; 
and  what  then  must  be  their  mutual  adverseness?  That 
war  excites  these  passions,  needs  not  be  proved.  When  a 
war  is  in  contemplation,  or  when  it  has  been  begun,  what 
are  the  endeavours  of  its  promoters  ?  They  animate  us  by 
every  artifice  of  excitement  to  hatred  and  animosity.  Pam- 
phlets, placards,  newspapers,  caricatures — every  agent  is  in 
requisition  to  irritate  us  into  malignity.  Nay,  dreadful  as  it 
is,  the  pulpit  resounds  with  declamations  to  stimulate  our  too 
sluggish  resentment  and  to  invite  us  to  blood. — And  thus  the 
most  unchristian-like  of  all  our  passions,  the  passion  which  it 
is  most  the  object  of  our  religion  to  repress,  is  excited  and  fos- 
tered. Christianity  cannot  be  flourishing  under  circumstan- 
ces like  these.  ■  The  more  effectually  we  are  animated  to 

*  All  sober  men  allow  this  to  be  true  in  relation  to  the  influ- 
ence of  those  Novels  which  decorate  a  profligate  character  with 
objects  of  attraction.  They  allow  that  our  complacency  with 
these  subjects  abates  our  hatred  of  the  accompanying-  vices. — 
And  the  same  also  is  true  in  relation  to  war  5  with  the  difference, 
indeed,  which  is  likely  to  exist  between  the  influence  of  the  vices 
of  fiction  and  that  of  the  vices  of  real  life. 

L 


122 

war,  the  more  nearly  we  extinguish  the  dispositions  of  our 
religion.  War  and  Christianity  are  like  the  opposite  ends 
of  a  balance,  of  which  one  is  depressed  by  the  elevation  of 
the  other. 

These  are  the  consequences  which  make  war  dreadful  to  a 
a  state.  Slaughter  and  devastation  are  sufficiently  terrible, 
but  their  collateral  evils  are  their  greatest.  It  is  the  immoral 
feeling  that  war  diffuses — it  is  the  depravation  of  principle, 
which  forms  the  mass  of  its  mischief. 

There  is  one  mode  of  hostility  that  is  allowed  and  en- 
couraged by  war,  which  appears  to  be  distinguished  by  pe- 
culiar atrocity :  I  mean  privateering.  If  war  could  be  shown 
to  be  necessary  or  right,  I  think  this,  at  least,  were  indefen- 
sible. It  were  surely  enough  that  army  slaughtered  army 
and  that  fleet  destroyed  fleet,  without  arming  individual 
avarice  for  private  plunder,  and  legalizing  robbery  because 
it  is  not  of  our  countrymen.  Who  are  the  victims  of  this 
plunder,  and  what  are  its  effects  1  Does  it  produce  any  mis- 
chief to  our  enemies  but  the  ruin  of  those  who  perhaps  would 
gladly  have  been  friends ; — of  those  who  are  made  enemies 
only  by  the  will  of  their  rulers,  and  who  now  conduct  their 
commerce  with  no  other  solicitude  about  the  war  than  how 
they  may  escape  the  rapine  which  it  sanctions?  Privateer- 
ing can  scarcely  plead  even  the  merit  of  public  mischief  in 
its  favour.  An  empire  is  little  injured  by  the  wretchedness 
and  starvation  of  a  few  of  its  citizens.  The  robbery  may, 
indeed,  be  carried  to  such  extent,  and  such  multitudes  may 
be  plundered,  that  the  ruin  of  individuals  may  impart  poverty 
to  a  state.  But  for  this  mischief  the  privateer  can  seldom 
hope :  and  what  is  that  practice,  of  which  the  only  topic  of 
defence  is  the  enormity  of  its  mischief! 

There  is  a  yet  more  dreadful  consideration  :  The  privateer 
is  not  only  a  robber  but  a  murderer.  If  he  cannot  other- 
wise plunder  his  victim,  human  life  is  no  obstacle  to  his 
rapine.  Robbery  is  his  object,  and  his  object  he  will  attain. 
Nor  has  he  the  ordinary  excuses  of  slaughter  in  his  defence. 
His  government  does  not  require  it  of  him  :  He  makes  no 
pretext  of  patriotism,  but  robs  and  murders  of  his  own  choice, 
and  simply  for  gain.  The  soldier  makes  a  bad  apology 
when  he  pleads  the  command  of  his  superior,  but  the  privateer 
has  no  command  to  plead ;  and  with  no  object  but  plunder, 
he  deliberately  seeks  a  set  of  ruffians  who  are  unprincipled 
enough  for  robbery,  and  ferocious  enough  for  murder,  and 


123 

sallies  with  them  upon  the  ocean,  like  tigers  upon  a  desert, 
and  like  tigers  prowling  for  prey. — To  talk  of  Christianity, 
as  permitting  these  monstrous  proceedings,  implies  deplorable 
fatuity,  or  more  deplorable  profaneness.  I  would,  however, 
hope,  that  he  who  sends  out  a  privateer  has  not  so  little 
shame  as  to  pretend  to  conscience  or  honesty. — If  he  will 
be  a  robber  and  a  murderer,  let  him  at  least  not  be  a  hypo- 
crite ;  for  it  is  hypocrisy  for  such  men  to  pretend  to  religion 
or  morality.  He  that  thus  robs  the  subjects  of  another  coun- 
try, wants  nothing  but  impunity  to  make  him  rob  his  neigh- 
bour :  He  has  no  restraint  from  principle. 

I  know  not  how  it  happens  that  men  make  pretensions  to 
Christianity  whilst  they  sanction  or  promote  such  prodigious 
wickedness.  It  is  sufficiently  certain,  that  whatever  be  their 
pretensions  to  it,  it  is  not  operative  upon  their  conduct.  Such 
men  may  talk  of  religion,  but  they  neither  possess  nor  regard 
it :  And  although  I  would  not  embrace  in  such  censure,  those, 
who  without  immediate  or  remote  participation  in  the  crime, 
look  upon  it  with  secret  approbation  because  it  injures  their 
"  enemies,"  I  would  nevertheless  suggest  to  their  considera- 
tion, whether  their  moral  principles  are  at  that  point  in  the 
scale  of  purity  and  benevolence  which  religion  enjoins. 

We  often  hear,  during  a  war,  of  subsidies  from  one  na- 
tion to  another  for  the  loan  of  an  army ;  and  we  hear  of  this 
without  any  emotion,  except,  perhaps,  of  joy  at  the  greater 
probability  of  triumph,  or  of  anger  that  our  money  is  expend- 
ed. Yet,  surely,  if  we  contemplate  such  a  bargain  for  a  mo- 
ment, we  shall  perceive  that  our  first  and  greatest  emotion 
ought  to  be  abhorrence. — -To  borrow  ten  thousand  men  who 
know  nothing  of  our  quarrel,  and  care  nothing  for  it,  to  help 
us  to  slaughter  their  fellows !  To  pay  for  their  help  in  guineas 
to  their  sovereign !  Well  has  it  been  exclaimed 

War  is  a  game,  that  were  their  subjects  wise, 
Kings  would  not  play  at.  * 

A  king  sells  his  subjects  as  a  farmer  sells  his  cattle ;  and 
sends  them  to  destroy  a  people,  whom,  if  they  had  been  higher 
bidders,  he  would,  perhaps,  have  sent  them  to  defend.  That 
kings  should  do  this,  may  grieve,  but  it  cannot  surprise  us : 
Avarice  has  been  as  unprincipled  in  humbler  life ;  the  pos- 

*  Note  E  E. 


124 

sible  malignity  of  individual  wickedness  is,  perhaps,  without 
any  limit.  But  that  a  large  number  of  persons  with  the  feel- 
ings and  reason  of  men,  should  coolly  listen  to  the  bargain 
of  their  sale,  should  compute  the  guineas  that  will  pay  for 
their  blood,  and  should  then  quietly  be  led  to  a  place  where 
they  are  to  kill  people  towards  whom  they  have  no  animosity, 
is  simply  wonderful.  To  what  has  inveteracy  of  habit  re- 
conciled mankind !  I  have  no  capacity  of  supposing  a  case 
of  slavery,  if  slav&ry  be  denied  in  this.  Men  have  been  sold 
in  another  continent,  and  England  has  been  shocked  and 
aroused  to  interference ;  yet  these  men  were  sold,  not  to  be 
slaughtered  but  to  work :  but  of  the  purchases  and  sales  of 
the  world's  political  butchers,  England  cares  nothing  and 
thinks  nothing — nay,  she  is  a  participator  in  the  bargains. 
There  is  no  reason  to  doubt  that  upon  other  subjects  of  hor- 
ror, similar  familiarity  of  habit  would  produce  similar  effects; 
or  that  he  who  heedlessly  contemplates  the  purchase  of  an 
army,  wants  nothing  but  this  familiarity  to  make  him  heed- 
lessly look  on  at  the  commission  of  parricide.  If  we  could 
for  one  moment  emancipate  ourselves  from  this  power  of 
habit,  how  would  it  change  the  scene  that  is  before  us  !  Little 
would  remain  to  war  of  splendour  or  glory,  but  we  should  be 
left  with  one  wide  waste  of  iniquity  and  wretchedness. 

It  is  the  custom,  during  the  continuance  of  a  war,  to  offer 
public  prayers  for  the  success  of  our  arms — and  our  enemies 
pray  also  for  the  success  of  theirs.  I  will  acknowledge  that 
this  practice  appears  to  me  to  be  eminently  shocking  and 
profane.  The  idea  of  two  communities  of  Christians,  sepa- 
rated perhaps  by  a  creek,  at  the  same  moment  begging  their 
common  Father  to  assist  them  in  reciprocal  destruction,  is 
an  idea  of  horror  to  which  I  know  no  parallel.  Lord  assist 
us  to  slaughter  our  enemies :  This  is  our  petition. — "  Fa- 
ther, forgive  them  ;  they  know  not  what  they  do." — This  is 
the  petition  of  Christ. 

It  is  certain,  that  of  two  contending  communities,  both 
cannot  be  in  the  right.  Yet  both  appeal  to  heaven  to  avouch 
the  justice  of  their  cause,  and  both  mingle  with  their  peti- 
tions for  the  increase,  perhaps,  of  Christian  dispositions, 
importunities  to  the  God  of  mercy  to  assist  them  in  the  de- 
struction of  one  another.  Taking  into  account  the  ferocity 
of  the  request — the  solemnity  of  its  circumstances — the 
falsehood  of  its  representations — the  fact  that  both  parties 
are  Christians,  and  that  their  importunities  are  simultaneous 


125 

to  their  common  Lord,  I  do  not  think  that  the  world  exhibits 
another  example  of  such  irreverent  and  shocking  iniquity. 
Surely  it  were  enough  that  we  slaughter  one  another  alone 
in  our  pigmy  quarrels,  without  soliciting  the  Father  of  the 
universe  to  be  concerned  in  them :  surely  it  were  enough 
that  each  reviles  the  other  with  the  iniquity  of  his  cause, 
without  each  assuring  Heaven  that  he  only  is  in  the  right — 
an  assurance  that  is  false,  probably  in  both,  and  certainly 
in  one. 

To  attempt  to  pursue  the  consequences  of  war  through  all 
her  ramifications  of  evil,  were,  however,  both  endless  and 
vain.  It  is  a  moral  gangrene  which  diffuses  its  humours 
through  the  whole  political  and  social  system.  To  expose 
its  mischief,  is  to  exhibit  all  evil ;  for  there  is  no  evil  which 
it  does  not  occasion,  and  it  has  much  that  is  peculiar  to 
itself. 

That,  together  with  its  multiplied  evils,  war  produces 
some  good,  I  have  no  wish  to  deny.  I  know  that  it  some- 
times elicits  valuable  qualities  which  had  otherwise  been 
concealed,  and  that  it  often  produces  collateral  and  adventi- 
tious, and  sometimes  immediate  advantages.  If  all  this  could 
be  denied,  it  would  be  needless  to  deny  it,  for  it  is  of  no  con- 
sequence to  the  question  whether  it  be  proved.  That  any 
wide  extended  system  should  not  produce  some  benefits,  can 
never  happen.  In  such  a  system,  it  were  an  unheard-of 
purity  of  evil,  which  was  evil  without  any  mixture  of  good. 
But,  to  compare  the  ascertained  advantages  of  war,  with  its 
ascertained  mischiefs,  or  with  the  ascertained  advantages  of 
a  system  of  peace,  and  to  maintain  a  question  as  to  the  pre- 
ponderance of  good,  implies  not  ignorance,  but  guilt — not 
incapacity  of  determination,  but  voluntary  falsehood. 

But  I  rejoice  in  the  conviction  that  the  hour  is  approach- 
ing, when  Christians  shall  cease  to  be  the  murderers  of  one 
another.  Christian  light  is  certainly  spreading,  and  there  is 
scarcely  a  country  in  Europe,  in  which  the  arguments  for 
unconditional  peace,  have  not  recently  produced  conviction. 
This  conviction  is  extending  in  our  own  country,  in  such  a 
degree,  and  upon  such  minds,  that  it  makes  the  charge  of 
enthusiasm  or  folly,  vain  and  idle.  The  friends  of  peace, 
if  we  choose  to  despise  their  opinions,  cannot  themselves  be 
despised ;  and  every  year  is  adding  to  their  number,  and  to 
the  sum  of  their  learning  and  their  intellect. 
l2 


126 

It  will  perhaps  be  asked,  what  then  are  the  duties  of  a 
subject  who  believes  that  all  war  is  incompatible  with  his 
religion,  but  whose  governors  engage  in  a  war  and  demand 
his  service  ?  We  answer  explicitly,  It  is  his  duty,  mildly 
and  temperately,  yet  firmly,  to  refuse  to  serve. — There  are 
some  persons,  who,  without  any  determinate  process  of  rea- 
soning, appear  to  conclude  that  responsibility  for  national 
measures  attaches  solely  to  those  who  direct  them ;  that  it 
is  the  business  of  governments  to  consider  what  is  good  for 
the  community,  and  that,  in  these  cases,  the  duty  of  the  sub- 
ject is  merged  in  the  will  of  the  sovereign.  Considerations 
like  these,  are,  I  believe,  often  voluntarily  permitted  to  be- 
come opiates  of  the  conscience.  J  have  no  part,  it  is  said, 
in  the  counsels  of  the  government,  and  am  not,  therefore, 
responsible  for  its  crimes.  We  are,  indeed,  not  responsible 
for  the  crimes  of  our  rulers,  but  we  are  responsible  for  our 
own ;  and  the  crimes  of  our  rulers  are  our  own ;  if,  whilst 
we  believe  them  to  be  crimes,  we  promote  them  by  our  co- 
operation. "  It  is  at  all  times,"  says  Gisborne,  "  the  duty 
of  an  Englishman,  stedfastly  to  decline  obeying  any  orders 
of  his  superiors,  which  his  conscience  should  tell  him  were 
in  any  degree  impious  or  unjust."*  The  apostles,  who  in- 
structed their  converts  to  be  subject  to  every  ordinance  of 
man  for  conscience'  sake,  and  to  submit  themselves  to  those 
who  were  in  authority,  and  who  taught  them,  that  whoever 
resisted  the  power,  resisted  the  ordinance  of  God,  made  one 
necessary  and  uniform  provision — that  the  magistrate  did 
not  command  them  to  do,  what  God  had  commanded  them 
to  forbear.^  With  the  regulations  which  the  government 
of  a  country  thought  fit  to  establish,  the  apostles  complied, 
whatever  they  might  think  of  their  wisdom  or  the  expedi- 
ency, provided,  and  only  provided,  they  did  not,  by  this 
compliance,  abandon  their  allegiance  to  the  Governor  of  the 
world.  It  is  scarcely  necessary  to  observe  in  how  many 
cases  they  refused  to  obey  the  commands  of  the  governments 
under  which  they  were  placed,  or  how  openly  they  maintain- 
ed the  duty  of  refusal,  whenever  these  commands  interfered 
with  their  higher  obligations.  It  is  narrated  very  early  in 
"  the  Acts,"  that  one  of  their  number  was  imprisoned  for 
preaching,  that  he  was  commanded  to  preach  no  more,  and 
was  then  released.     Soon  afterwards  all  the  apostles  were 

*  Duties  of  men  in  Society.  f  Note  F.  F. 


127 

imprisoned. — "  Did  we  not  straitly  command  you,"  said  the 
rulers,  "  that  ye  should  not  teach  in  this  name  ?" — The  an- 
swer which  they  made  is  in  point : — "  We  ought  to  obey 
God  rather  than  men."*  And  this  system  they  continued 
to  pursue.  If  Caesar  had  ordered  one  of  the  apostles  to  be 
enrolled  in  his  legions,  does  any  one  believe  that  he  would 
have  served  ? 

But  those  who  suppose  that  obedience  in  all  things  is  re- 
quired, or  that  responsibility  in  political  affairs,  is  transferred 
from  the  subject  to  the  sovereign,  reduce  themselves  to  a 
great  dilemma.  It  is  to  say  that  we  must  resign  our  con- 
duct and  our  consciences  to  the  will  of  others,  and  act  wick- 
edly  or  well,  as  their  good  or  evil  may  preponderate,  without 
merit  for  virtue  or  responsibility  for  crime.  If  the  govern- 
ment direct  you  to  fire  your  neighbour's  property,  or  to 
throw  him  over  a  precipice,  will  you  obey  1  If  you  will  not, 
there  is  an  end  of  the  argument ;  for  if  you  may  reject  its 
authority  in  one  instance,  where  is  the  limit  to  rejection  ? 
There  is  no  rational  limit  but  that  which  is  assigned  by 
Christianity,  and  that  is  both  rational  and  practicable.  If 
any  one  should  ask  the  meaning  of  the  words  "  whoso  re- 
sisteth  the  power  resisteth  the  ordinance  of  God" — we  an- 
swer, that  it  refers  to  active  resistance ;  passive  resistance, 
or  non-compliance,  the  apostles  themselves  practised.  On 
this  point  we  should  be  distinctly  understood.  We  are  not 
so  inconsistent  as  to  recommend  a  civil  war,  in  order  to  avoid 
a  foreign  one. — Refusal  to  obey  is  the  final  duty  of  Chris- 
tians. 

We  think,  then,  that  it  is  the  business  of  every  man,  who 
believes  that  war  is  inconsistent  with  our  religion,  respect- 
fully, but  steadfastly,  to  refuse  to  engage  in  it.  Let  such  as 
these  remember,  that  an  honourable  and  an  awful  dutyis 
laid  upon  them.  It  is  upon  their  fidelity,  so  far  as  human 
agency  is  concerned,  that  the  cause  of  peace  is  suspended. 
Let  them  then  be  willing  to  avow  their  opinions  and  to  de- 
fend them.  Neither  let  them  be  contented  with  words,  if 
more  than  words,  if  suffering  also,  is  required.  It  is  only  by 
the  unyielding  perseverance  of  good,  that  corruption  can  be 
extirpated.  If  you  believe  that  Jesus  Christ  has  prohibited 
slaughter,  let  not  the  opinion  or  the  commands  of  a  world 

*  Acts  vi.  28. 


128 


induce  you  to  join  in  it.  By  this  "  steady  and  determinate 
pursuit  of  virtue,"  the  benediction  which  attaches  to  those 
who  hear  the  sayings  of  God  and  do  them,  will  rest  upon 
you,  and  the  time  will  come  when  even  the  world  will  honour 
you,  as  contributors  to  the  work  of  human  reformation. 


NOTES 


TO  THE 


INQUIRY  OF  THE  ACCORDANCY  OF  WAR 


WITH   THE 


PRINCIPLES  OF  CHRISTIANITY. 


NOTES 


TO 


JONATHAN  DYMOND  ON  WAR. 


NOTE  A. 


With  joy  ambition  saw  and  soon  improved 
The  execrable  deed!  'Twas  not  enough 
By  subtle  fraud  to  snatch  a  single  life. 
Puny  Impiety!  whole  kingdoms  fell 
To  sate  the  lust  of  power:  more  horrid  still, 
The  foulest  stain  and  scandal  of  our  nature, 
Became  its  boast.     One  murder  made  a  villain; 
Millions  a  hero.     Princes  were  privileged 
To  kill,  and  numbers  sanctified  the  crime. 

Death,  by  Porteus. — Ed. 

This  comparison  of  a  hero  with  a  robber  has  been  often  made. 
"  Father  Mascaron  told  us  from  the  pulpit  to  day,"  says  Made,  de 
Maintenon,  "  that  the  hero  was  a  robber,  who  did  at  the  head  of 
an  army,  what  a  highwayman  did  alone."  "  Our  master,  Lewis 
14th,"  she  adds,  "  was  not  pleased  with  the  comparison."  "I 
am  a  pirate,"  said  one  of  that  class  to  Alexander  the  Great,  "be- 
cause I  have  only  a  single  vessel.  Had  I  a  great  fleet,  I  should 
be  a  conqueror."  Lucca  calls  conquerors  "great  and  furious 
robbers." 


132 


NOTE  B. 


And  what  makes  the  contrast  more  striking-,  we  glory  and  re- 
joice in  the  wholesale  destruction  of  Fathers,  Husbands  and  Sons, 
of  the  amiable  and  generous,  of  the  polite  and  accomplishd,  of 
venerable  age  and  flourishing  youth,  nay  of  fellow  Christians, 
because  they  are  our  Enemys,  as  tho*  this  were  not  the  very  reason 
why  Christ  commands  us  to  save,  lov  and  serv  them.  But  we  are 
filld  with  indignation  and  horror  at  the  murder  of  a  miser,  a  black- 
guard, a  convict,  a  heathen,  an  extortioner,  even  tho'  he  be  our 
enemy,  and  the  persecutor  of  the  widow  and  orphan.  Such  is 
the  delusion,  of  which  war  has  made  us  the  slaves. — Ed. 


NOTE  C. 

No  one  doubts,  that  the  practice  of  going  armd,  which  for- 
merly prevaild,  was  a  perpetual  incentiv  to  personal  conflicts. 
It  is  the  same  with  nations,  or  rather  governments.  The  better 
they  are  prepar'd  for  war,  the  more  likely  it  is  they  will  go 
to  war.  The  vast  majority  of  wars  hav  arisen,  nominaly,  from 
some  ostensible  cause  of  injury,  insult,  or  anticipated  danger ; 
but,  in  reality,  from  the  fact  that  the  government  was  ready. 
Rulers,  who  are  ready,  never  want  motivs  and  causes.  All  his- 
tory proves  that  the  prepar'd  for  war  never  lackd  the  inclina- 
tion and  the  pretext.  All  history  disproves  the  truth  of  Wash- 
ington's sentiment:  "  To  be  prepar'd  for  war  is  one  of  the  most 
efectual  means  of  preserving  peace."  To  be  thus  prepar'd  is  the 
eficient  cause  of  almost  all  the  wars  that  have  ever  existed. 
The  unprepar'd  scarcely  ever  go  to  war:  and  the  prepar'd  har 
been  as  often,  if  not  oftener,  attackd,  because  they  were  prepar'd, 
than  the  unprepar'd,  because  they  were  unprepar'd. — Ed. 


NOTE  D. 

Let  us  ilustrate  this.  Is  a  man,  who  it  is  known  will  not  fight 
a  duel,  more  liable  to  insult  and  violence,  than  a  man  who  will 
fight?    Is  it  not  the  reverse?    How  rarely  is  the  man  of  peace 


133 

insulted  or  struck?  His  firmness,  calmness,  and  consciousness 
of  being  right,  give  him  an  iresistible  influence. — Where  you 
find  one  man,  who  would  insult,  much  less  strike,  such  a  person, 
you  will  find  a  hundred,  if  not  a  thousand,  who  would  strike  a 
man  of  different  principles  and  practice.  This  is  individual  ex- 
perience. There  is  no  national  experience  to  contradict  it.  The 
only  national  example  of  a  people  unarmd  on  principle,  and 
resolvd  to  wage  neither  offensiv  nor  defensiv  war,  is  that  of  Pen- 
sylvania,  which  enjoyd  peace  for  seventy  years  under  the  admi- 
nistration of  William  Penn  and  his  followers.  Can  Christians, 
not  those  who  are  such  only  in  form  and  profession,  but  those 
who  are  such  in  spirit  and  in  truth,  in  the  simplicity  and  faith 
of  the  Gospel,  can  they  doubt  that  any  other  people,  governd 
by  the  same  principles,  would  be  equaly  protected?  If  they  do 
doubt,  where  is  their  trust  in  God? — Ed. 


NOTE  E. 

The  abolition  of  the  rights  of  primogeniture  in  this  country, 
is  among  the  leading  causes  in  our  state  of  society,  which  hold 
out  the  prospect,  that  we  can  never  be  a  military  people.  The 
dedication  of  the  first  born  to  the  rank  of  gentlemen  of  fortune, 
and  of  younger  sons  among  the  gentry,  almost  as  a  matter  of 
course,  to  the  profession  of  arms,  as  in  Europe,  is  an  evil  that 
we  shall  never  know.  An  equal  distribution  of  property  is  emi- 
nently fitted  to  break  up  the  unnatural  distinctions  of  society 
in  Europe:  and  among  the  rest,  the  establishd,  and  I  may  add, 
privilegd  order  of  the  military.  Fortunately  for  our  country, 
the  army  and  the  navy  are  only  tolerated  as  matters  of  absolute 
necesity  in  the  opinion  of  the  people.  The  signs  of  the  times  indi- 
cate the  decay  and  final  downfal  of  the  militia  system,  as  unnece- 
sary  and  inconvenient, — a  corrupter  of  morals  and  a  waste  of 
precious  time.  The  restriction  of  the  army  especialy,  to  the 
exceedingly  narrow  limits  assig-nd  to  it,  by  the  good  sense  and 
economical  spirit  of  the  American  people,  is  another  very  favor- 
able symptom.  An  army  always  exercises  a  strong  personal  as 
well  as  social  influence:  the  navy  very  little  of  either. — Ed. 


M 


134 


NOTE  F. 


It  is  impossible  not  to  see  how  entirely  the  history  of  mankind, 
as  it  has  been  actualy  written,  consists  of  wars  and  battels,  of  the 
biography  of  warriors,  and  of  the  various  incidents  of  military  and 
naval  achievments.  If  all  these  be  taken  out  of  ancient  history, 
evry  ten  volumes  will  be  reduced  to  one.  The  same  is  true  of  modern 
history,  tho*  not  to  the  same  extent.  Nor  can  any  exception  be 
made  in  favor  of  Christian  nations,  the  worshipers  of  the  Prince 
of  Peace.  They  have  dedicated  as  mueh  of  time,  talents,  wealth 
and  life  to  the  cause  of  war,  as  the  Pagan,  who  worships  the  god 
of  war,  or  the  Mahometan,  whose  prophet  was  more  of  a  warrior 
than  of  a  moralist  or  divine.  Is  it  wonderful  that  the  rulers  and 
inhabitants  of  Christian  country s  persist  in  war,  as  just  and  expe- 
dient, when  the  Christian  clergy  for  sixteen  centurys  have  been 
the  apologists  and  vindicators  of  war  ?  May  the  clergy  of  our  day 
in  the  spirit  of  faith,  humility  and  love,  review  the  principles  and 
example  of  their  predecesors  in  the  ministry  of  charity  and  meek- 
ness, of  forbearance,  compassion  and  forgivness.  Let  them  do  so 
in  the  spirit  of  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  and  with  all  singleness 
of  heart:  and  the  Christian  clergy  will  become  the  enemys  of  war 
in  every  form,  its  friends  in  none. — Ed. 


NOTE  G. 

This  remark  is  equaly  true  of  the  militia  officer  and  of  the  pri- 
vates even  of  uniform  volunteer  corps  in  the  militia.  Hence  the 
wisdom  of  the  sentiment  of  Dr.  Channing  in  a  speech,  (before 
the  Massachusetts  Peace  Society  I  believ,)  that  he  would  be  glad 
to  see  the  distinguishing  dress  of  the  soldier  abolishd.  If  this 
could  be  done,  the  militia  system  would  soon  perish.  What  but 
the  gay  dress,  with  the  shining  epaulet,  waving  plume  and  costly 
belt,  keeps  up  the  pride  and  taste,  and  spirit  of  such  corps? 
Abolish  these  insignia  of  the  citizen  warrior,  and  the  whole  sys- 
tem would  languish,  and  in  a  few  years  would  be  in  a  worse  con- 
dition than  the  beat  companys  of  ununiformd  militia.  In  this 
respect  of  dress,  we  cannot  help  again  remarking  the  diference 
between  the  army  and  navy.  The  simplicity  of  dress  in  the  lat- 
ter, the  fact  that  we  have  no  corresponding  class,  and  the  frequent 


135 

absences  from  the  country,  make  the  navy  dress  comparativly 
harmless.  But  the  dress  of  the  army,  especialy  of  the  officers; 
the  existence  of  correspondent  classes  in  the  militia;  the  imitation 
and  emulation  consequent  upon  this;  the  subjection  to  the  same 
system  of  disciplin;  the  constant  residence  within  the  country; 
and  occasional  parades  and  reviews,  all  contribute  to  the  exercise 
of  a  baneful  influence  on  the  taste  and  sentiment  of  the  commu- 
nity. I  regard  the  ostentatious  dress  of  uniform  companys,  as  on 
a  footing-  with  the  splendid  dresses  in  the  courts  of  princes  and 
on  the  theatre.  They  who  are  bent  on  preserving  the  three 
systems,  know  that  a  distinctiv  dress,  calculated  to  rivet  attention, 
gratify  curiosity,  and  fire  the  imagination,  is  indispensable  to  their 
preservation.  Abolish  the  gay  and  glittering  badges  of  courtiers, 
soldiers,  and  actors,  and  the  courts  of  princes,  the  militia  system 
and  the  theatre  must  perish. — Ed. 


NOTE  H. 

I  quote  with  pleasure  the  following  passage  from  the  Pittsburg 
speech  of  Mr.  Webster,  8th  July,  1833:  "It  has  always  seemd 
extremely  strange  to  me,  that  the  objects  of  government  should 
be  limited  so  much  to  beligerent  operations;  that  its  dutys  should 
seem  to  be  considerd  as  referable  so  exclusivly  to  wars  with 
other  nations.  Certainly,  in  a  day  of  Christianity,  in  a  day  of  light 
and  knowlege,  of  benevolent  feeling  and  action,  it  should  be  the 
business  of  government  to  turn  its  attention  inward:  to  remember 
that  the  objects  of  its  supervision  are  rational,  immortal  beings; 
and  to  seek  to  promote  all  great  interests,  so  far  as  may  be  within 
its  constitutional  power;  and  surely  within  that  range  are  objects 
far  more  worthy  of  zeal  and  assiduity,  than  such  as  look  to  our 
external  relations,  to  war,  or  victory,  or  triumph."  This,  I  have 
no  doubt,  is  the  sentiment  of  the  great  body  of  intelligent  men  in 
our  country.  It  may  be  pronounc'd  a  national  sentiment.  The 
warrior  must  always  hold  a  secondary  rank  in  any  just  estimate 
of  the  history  of  our  country.  The  statesman  and  civilian  hav 
always  been  the  leading  spirits,  in  public  affairs.  Hence,  in  our 
country,  most  fortunately  for  the  cause  of  Christianity,  the  stand- 
ard of  true  glory  must  becom  more  and  more  identifyd  with  the 
cause  of  peace,  with  education  in  the  people,  and  literature  in 


136 

the  ruler,  with  the  sense  of  duty  and  the  spirit  of  usefulness,  with 
the  capacity  for  and  the  love  of  doing-  good*  with  religion,  morals 
and  philosophy. — Ed. 


NOTE  I. 


How  little  patriotism  enters  into  the  motivs  of  the  officer  and 
soldier,  may  be  ilustrated  by  these  considerations.  If  the  officer 
fights  from  the  love  of  country,  why,  if  he  has  a  competency,  does 
he  accept  any  pay?  Would  he  not  feel  dishonourd  by  permitting 
a  father,  brother,  or  friend  to  pay  him  for  defending*  them;  unless 
his  circumstances  made  it  a  duty  to  receiv  compensation?  When 
the  war  is  over,  why  do  you  find  that  officers,  who  are  rich,  and 
those  who  have  a  competency  as  well  as  those  who  are  poor,  ap- 
ply for  aid,  and  are  anxious  to  obtain  half  pay,  bounty  lands,  and 
any  other  compensation  for  military  service?  Let  a  man  act  the 
same  part  by  his  father,  brother  or  friend:  and  who  would  give 
him  any  credit  for  a  sense  of  duty  and  for  afection  towards  them  ? 
Yet  the  very  persons,  who  ask  and  receiv  these  rewards,  consider 
the  obligations  of  patriotism  as  higher  and  holyer  than  those  of 
blood  or  friendship :  and  would  think  their  country  ungrateful,  and 
mankind  little  less  than  senseless  and  unfeeling,  if  they  did  not 
acknowlege  and  applaud  their  patriotism.  The  claim  of  a  soldier  to 
be  styled  a  patriot  is  still  more  groundless..  Look  at  the  example 
of  the  late  war  with  Great  Britain,  said  to  have  been  so  favorit  a 
measure  with  the  people.  Yet  the  government  was  compelld  to 
advance  the  bounty s  in  land  and  money,  and  the  regular  pay,  in  a 
manner  which  proves  beyond  all  doubt,  that  patriotism  was  no  part 
of  the  soldier's  motiv  for  enlisting.  So  with  the  men  who  furnishd 
money  to  the  government.  What  should  we  say  of  the  sense  of  duty 
and  of  the  afections  of  a  man,  who,  taking  advantage  of  the  ne- 
cesitys  of  a  father,  brother  or  friend,  should  lend  him  money  and 
take  his  bond  for  100  dollars,  when  he  only  receivd  95,  90,  or  85 
dollars?  Yet  this  was  exactly  the  patriotism  of  the  money  lenders  of 
the  last  war.  Let  any  one,,  who  reads  the  history  of  the  war  of 
1776  and  18.12,  say,  whether,  if  patnotism  was  the  ruling  passion, 
it  is  possible  to  account  for  the  apathy  and  unwillingness  of  the 
great  body  of  the  people,  to  aid  the  government  either  in  person 
or  with  funds,    Aad  what  shall  we  say  of  the  embarrasments  of 


137 

the  finances,-  of  the  severe  laws  adopted  to  enforce  the  military 
and  militia  systems;  of  the  miserable  condition  of  the  army,  many 
and  many  a  time  as  to  arms,  clothing"  and  provisions;  of  the  diffi- 
culty of  keeping*  the  militia  in  camp,  even  for  a  few  months;  and 
of  the  uniform  testimony  to  their  comparativ  ineficiency  in  the 
field.  If  patriotism  had  been  the  all-absorbing  motiv  of  the  people 
and  the  army,  there  never  would  hav  been  a  deficiency  in  men  and 
money,  no,  not  for  a  single  day.  Thousands  of  men  and  tens  of 
thousands  of  dollars  would  hav  been  at  the  command  of  the  gov- 
ernment, evry  where  and  at  all  times.  The  history  of  both  wars, 
dispassionately  considerd,  can  leav  no  doubt,  that  patriotism  was 
not  the  ruling  motiv:  otherwise,  such  numerous  and  glaring-  proofs 
of  the  contrary  would  not  blacken  the  pages  of  our  history.  It  is 
time  that  the  people  of  this  country  took  a  plain,  matter  of  fact, 
common  sense  view  of  this  subject.  Whenever  they  do,  and  I 
am  sure  the  period  is  at  hand,  they  will  be  constraind  to  confess, 
that  patriotism  had  but  a  small  share  in  the  conduct  of  the  people, 
of  the  money  lenders  and  contractors,  of  the  officers  and  soldiers. 
I  trust  I  may  speak  thus  frankly  and  boldly  the  honest  convictions 
of  my  soul,  without  giving  just  cause  of  offence.  Liberty  of 
speech,  independence  of  opinion,  and  the  duty  to  exercise  both, 
according  to  our  sense  of  what  is  right,  are  at  once  both  the  pri- 
vilege and  duty  of  the  Christian  and  American. — Ed. 


NOTE  J. 

I  am  surprised  that  Dymond  should  hav  conceded  the  case  of 
self-defence  to  be  an  instance  of  patriotism.  Who  would  ascribe 
pure  and  noble  motivs  to  a  man,  who  should  defend  himself 
against  a  wild  beast,  or  against  the  robber  or  assassin?  Now,  this 
is  precisely  the  situation  of  a  people,  who  arm  for  the  unmingled 
purpose  of  defending  themselvs.  "  They  are  governd  by  selfish, 
not  patriotic  motivs:  and  there  is  no  more  virtue  and  merit  in 
national,  than  individual  self-defence.  No  one  would  think  of  be- 
stowing similar  praise  on  a  crew,  who  should  defend  themselvs 
against  a  pirate,  whatever  commendation  might  be  lavishd  on 
their  galantry  and  skill.  Self-defence  is  no  more  patriotism  in  a 
people,  than  in  the  crew  of  a  vessel  or  in  an  individual. — Ed. 
m2 


138 


NOTE  K. 


The  great  error  of  the  clergy  has  been,  not  that  they  hav 
preachd  and  prayd  in  favour  of  war,  tho'  they  hav  often  done 
both,  but  that  they  hav  not  preachd  and  prayd  in  favor  of  peace. 
Is  it  not  absolutely  astonishing-,  is  it  not  enough  to  fill  the  clergy 
as  a  body  with  dismay,  and  remorse,  and  confusion  of  face,  that 
not  one  in  ten  thousand  sermons,  I  believ  I  might  rather  say  one 
in  a  hundred  thousand,  has  been  dedicated  to  the  subject  of  war 
and  peace?  What  extraordinary  blindness  and  delusion  have  led 
them  so  exceedingly  seldom,  to  apply  the  plain,  universal,  undoubt- 
ed obligations  of  Christian  love,  forbearance,  forgivness,  humility, 
to  the  cause  of  war  ?  The  fall  of  Alexander  Hamilton  in  a  duel, 
probably  occasiond  a  greater  number  of  sermons  against  dueling, 
than  hav  been  preachd  in  this  country  against  war,  during  a  cen- 
tury. It  cannot  be  that  the  clergy  are  not  aware  of  the  crimes 
and  vices,  of  the  atrocitys  committed  and  of  the  miserys  endur'd 
in  war.  It  can  only  be,  because  they  hav  not  applyd  the  rules 
of  Christian  morals  to  the  public,  as  they  hav  to  the  private  con- 
duct of  men.  Had  the  clergy  been  faithful  to  these  simple  regu- 
lations for  the  heart  and  conscience  of  all  men,  without  exception, 
Peace  Society's  would  never  hav  been  heard  of,  or  needed.  But 
their  silence  has  left  the  world  to  pursue  its  own  course.  Now, 
war  is  the  most  powerful,  corrupt  and  reckless  enemy,  that  society 
has  had  to  contend  with  from  the  beginning:  It  is  equaly  the  de- 
stroyer of  life,  property,  virtue  and  happines.  It  enslaves  alike 
nations  and  individuals.  It  overturns  governments,  pollutes  and 
shatters,  if  it  does  not  annihilate  institutions,  and  consumes  the 
resources  of  a  country  and  the  flower  of  its  youth.  It  causes  and 
perpetuates  national  envy,  hostility  and  jealousy.  It  familiarizes 
the  mind  with  scenes  of  carnage,  violence  and  injustice,  of  fraud 
and  cunning,  in  a  word,  with  almost  evry  vice  and  evry  crime. 
It  has  never  ceasd  to  be  the  favorit  and  terrible  instrument  of 
selfish,  ambitious  and  wicked  rulers:  and  has  always  been  the 
great  enemy  of  the  virtue  and  education,  of  the  comfort,  prosperity 
and  happiness  of  the  people.  When  I  reflect  that  this  is  a  faithful 
portrait  of  war,  as  attested  by  evry  historian  of  nations,  the  silence 
of  a  Christian  clergy  appears  to  me  one  of  the  most  striking  and 
unaccountable  phenomena,  in  the  history  of  mankind.  That  they 
hav  often  been  the  powerful  and  eloquent  advocates  of  war;  that 
they  hav  been  still  more  generaly  its  apologists,  and  hav  been 


139 

almost  universaly  silent  as  to  its  tns- christian  character,  admits-  of 
no  doubt.  Strange  and  unnatural  as  this  appears,  when  we  con- 
sider war  merely  as  the  foe  of  justice  and  humanity,  how  much 
more  so,  when  we  reflect  that  it  is  also  the  enemy  of  religion  and 
morals,  despising-  equaly  the  sanctions  of  that,  and  the  golden 
rules  of  this.  Is  not  the  day  far  spent,  which  beholds  the  minis- 
ters of  the  meek  and  humble  Jesus,  the  Prince  of  peace  and  love, 
thus  unconcernd  at  the  ravages  of  this  mightyest  enemy  of  society 
and  the  church?  I  at  least,  belie v,  with  the  strength  of  a  daunt- 
less faith,  with  the  energy  of  unquenchd  and  unquenchable  hope, 
that  in  twenty  years,  hundreds  of  clergymen  will  be  the  fearless 
constant  advocates  of  peace:  and  that  war  and  the  warrior  will  be 
denounc'd  as  Unchristian,  from  a  thousand  pulpits. — En * 


NOTE  L. 

When  the  advocate  of  peace  relys  on  the  conduct  of  our 
Savior  at  this  crisis,  to  prove  that  armd  resistance  to  tyrany  and 
oppression  is  unchristian,  we  are  reminded  of  the  text,  "how  then 
shall  the  Scriptures  be  fulfilld  that  thus  it  must  be?"  " Hence  it 
seems  to  be  concluded,  that  it  would  have  been  imposible  for  our 
Savior  to  employ  such  instruments,  consistently  with  his  mission. 
But  why  could  he  not?  Was  it  inconsistent,  because  it  had  been 
foreordaind?  Was  it  not  rather  foreordaind,  because  it  would  be 
inconsistent?  It  was  then  inconsistent  with  his  character,  prin- 
ciples and  mission :  not  merely  by  force  of  the  fact,  that  it  had 
been  foreordaind;  but  because  it  had  been  so  orderd  on  account 
of  its  inconsistency.  Our  Savior's  declaration  amounted  there- 
fore to  this:  "I  came  into  the  world  to  be  numberd  with  the 
transgressors,  and  to  die  the  death  of  the  cross.  I  came,  not  to 
resist  evil;  but  to  lay  down  my  life,  a  ransom  for  many.  I  do  not 
resist  with  arms,  not  because  I  hav  not  the  power  and  the  right  to 
do  so;  but  because  one  such  act  would  be  an  abandonment  and  repeal 
of  all  I  hav  taught?"  Perhaps  it  will  be  said,  our  Savior  could  not 
have  resisted  at  all,  without  defeating  the  very  objects  for  which 
he  came  into  the  world:  that  his  act  is  not  therefore  any  proof 
that  his  followers  ought  not  to  resist,  unless  it  be  equaly  clear,  that 
by  so  doing,  they  would  defeat  the  end,  for  which  they  came  into 
the  world.     These  now  are  the  very  things  we  insist  on.     Christ 


140 

could  not  have  resisted  without  defeating"  those  ends.  But  why 
was  it  ordaind,  or  at  all  events  permitted,  that  he  should  be 
assaild  by  an  armd  force,  seizd,  led  to  the  judgment  hall  of  a 
heathen  governor,  condemnd  unjustly,  and  executed  on  the  cross: 
and  all  without  resistance?  Why,  but  to  ilustrate  the  very  princi- 
ples we  are  contending-  for?  the  Christian  doctrin  of  non-resistance. 
For  this,  he  came  into  the  world  to  teach  the  poor  and  despisd, 
to  be  himself  hated  and  persecuted,  to  be  falsely  accusd,  and  to 
die  the  death  of  a  malefactor  on  the  cross.  If  non-resistance  thro' 
life  and  in  death  were  not  indispensable  to  his  system  of  morals, 
why  should  all  these  things  have  found  such  a  prominent  place  in 
his  history?  Other  methods  could  easily  have  been  provided,  had 
there  not  been  a  peculiar  fitness  and  virtue  in  these.  Jesus,  there- 
fore, did  not  resist,  not  merely  because  it  had  been  foreordaind 
that  he  should  not,  but  because  resistance  would  hav  been  incon- 
sistent with  the  end  for  which  he  had  come  into  the  world,  and, 
therefore,  non-resistance  had  been  foreordaind,  as  the  only  suitable 
instrument  for  him. 

Now  as  to  his  followers.  Is  not  their  great  end  to  imitate  him, 
in  all  things,  in  which  they  can?  If  then,  like  him,  they  may  be 
revild  and  persecuted,  be  unjustly  seizd,  condemnd,  and  put  to 
death,  do  they  not  defeat  the  great  end  of  life,  the  imitation  of 
Christ,  if  they  resist  by  rebellion  and  arms,  instead  of  copying  his 
non-resistance  ?  Has  the  Christian  any  greater  end  in  view,  than 
to  ilustrate  in  his  own  life  and  death,  the  life  and  death  of  his 
master?  Thus  to  imitate  Jesus,  may  not  be  the  fulfilment  of  pro- 
phecy; but  it  certainly  is  obedience  to  his  precepts  and  example. 
Now  the  fulfilment  of  duty  is  to  Christans,  like  the  fulfilment  of 
prophecy  to  the  Savior.  Non-resistance  was  foreordaind  in  the 
latter,  because  inconsistent  with  the  objects  of  his  life  and  death: 
and  it  was  commanded  in  the  former;  because  equaly  irreconcilable 
with  the  objects  of  their  life  and  death.  Non-resistance  was  fore- 
ordaind in  him,  as  an  example  to  them :  and  it  is  required  of  them, 
as  a  test  of  obedience  to  him. 


141 


NOTE  M. 


This  argument,  drawn  from  the  case  of  the  centurion,  could  be 
of  no  avail,  unles  it  were  shown,  which  cannot  be  doner  that 
Christ  in  evry  other  case  availd  himself  of  the  opportunity  offerd 
by  the  personal  character  of  those  who  applyd  to  him  for  aid,  or 
with  him  whom  he  was  conversing,  to  inculcate  his  doctrins  as 
contrasted  with,  or  ilustrated  by  their  characters.  Might  we  not 
as  reasonably  say,  that  he  approvd  the  religion  of  the  Samaritan 
leper,  or  of  the  Syrophenician  woman,  because  he  did  not  con- 
demn their  religious  observances,  and  advise  them  to  follow  him. 
Among  the  chief  rulers,  many  believd  in  him 5  but  because  of  the 
Pharisees,  they  did  not  confess  him,  lest  they  should  be  put  out 
of  the  synagogue :  for  they  lovd  the  praise  of  man,  more  than 
the  praise  of  God."  John  xii.  42,  43.  Who  would  justify  the 
conclusion,  because  we  find  no  special  condemnation  of  them, 
that  he  approvd?  Christ  talkd  with  the  Samaritan  woman,  who 
livd  with  a  man  not  her  husband;  and  even  reveald  to  her  that  he 
was  the  Messiah;  yet  while  he  told  her  "ye  worship  ye  know  not 
what,"  he  did  not  condemn  her  mode  of  life.  Shall  we  thence  infer 
that  he  approvd  it  ?  Jesus  raisd  from  the  dead  the  daughter  of  Jairus, 
a  ruler  of  the  synagogue.  Because  he  did  not  make  it  a  condition, 
that  he  should  follow  him,  are  we  thence  to  conclude,  that  it  was 
to  him  a  matter  of  perfect  indifference,  whether  Jairus  became 
his  disciple  or  continud  a  Jew?  But  there  is  another  considera- 
tion still  more  striking.  The  centurion  was  a  Roman  soldier. 
The  wars  of  the  Romans,  from  the  foundation  of  the  city  to  the 
time  of  our  Savior,  a  period  of  nearly  eight  hundred  years,  had 
been,  with  scarcely  any  exception,  wars  of  the  most  selfish  and 
sanguinary  ambition:  an  almost  uninterrupted  serys  of  robberys 
and  murders  on  a  gigantic  scale.  Now,  those  who  rely  on  the 
case  of  the  centurion,  certainly  do  not  mean  to  justify,  or  even 
excuse  the  Roman  wars,  which  were  for  the  most  part  of  unmin- 
gled  ferocity,  ambition  and  injustice.  Do  they  mean  then  to 
argue  that  Jesus  Christ  could  have  approvd  the  profession  of  a 
man,  who  had  dedicated  his  life  to  the  promotion  of  such  wars } 
Would  they  represent  the  pure,  meek  and  merciful  Savior,  as 
doing  what  they  would  shudder  themselves  to  do?  Whatever 
might  be  thought  of  the  wars  in  Italy,  against  the  Cimbri  and 
Gauls,  against  Hannibal  and  Pyrrhus,  certainly  there  can  be  but 


142 

one  opinion  as  to  the  deeply  criminal  character  of  the  wars  carryd 
on  out  of  Italy.  Yet  these  were  the  wars,  which  stampd  the 
character  of  the  Roman  army,  and  of  the  profession  of  arms  in  our 
Savior's  time.  Whatever  an  infidel  might  dare  to  say,  no  Chris- 
tian certainly  would  venture  even  to  suggest,  that  Jesus  could 
have  approvd  such  wars  and  such  a  profession. — Ed. 


NOTE  N. 

The  case  of  the  centurion  and  Peter  is  not  as  strong  as  that  of 
the  centurion  and  Jesus.  Peter  was  miraculously  commissiond 
to  go  to  him,  as  a  heathen,  not  as  a  soldier.  He  had  but  one  thing 
to  do,  viz.  to  execute  this  commission.  It  is  not  surprising  there- 
fore that  he  took  no  notice  of  his  profession,  when  his  only  con- 
cern was  with  his  religion.  To  change  his  profession  would  not 
be  to  abandon  his  religion?  but  to  change  this  would  involv  the 
abandonment  of  that  as  a  matter  of  course,  if  we  are  to  rely  as  we 
must,  on  the  testimonys  against  the  mihtary  profession,  during 
the  first  and  second  centurys  cited  by  Dymond  in  a  subsequent 
part  of  this  work. — Ed. 


NOTE  O. 

Bp.  Mann,  Dr.  S.  Clarke  and  Whitby,  hold  the  same  language 
as  the  writers  cited  by  Dymond  in  his  note.  I  cannot  however 
agree  with  them  in  this  figurativ  interpretation  of  the  text;  be- 
cause, as  I  shall  proceed  to  show,  it  had  far  higher  and  nobler 
uses.  This  metaphorical  explanation  of  the  text  never  would  have 
been  thought  of,  had  the  commentators  been  able  to  give  any 
other.  But  in  truth,  the  difficulty  in  the  passage  from  Luke  xxii. 
36,  does  not  he  in  disproving  the  conclusion,  drawn  from  it  by 
our  opponents;  for  they  themselvs  cannot  believ  that  our  Savior 
intended  his  followers  to  arm  and  defend  him  or  themselvs,  with 
mihtary  weapons.  The  real  difficulty  is  in  finding  the  true  rela- 
tion of  the  passage  to  the  context,  and  thence,  its  true  meaning. 
I  offer  the  following  views. 


143 

1.  The  passage  itself  and  the  whole  context  hav  no  conceivable 
relation  to  arms  and  military  warfare. 

2.  Jesus  could  not  have  meant  to  prepare  them  for  the  use  of 
the  second;  becaus  when  the  occasion  actualy  occurd,  he  eon- 
demnd  it  in  the  most  decisiv  manner;  tho',  before  Peter  struck, 
*  when  they,  which  were  about  him,  saw  what  would  follow,  they 
said  unto  him,  Lord,  shall  we  smite  with  the  sword?"  but  he  gave 
no  answer  then.  Luke  xxii.  49. 

3.  Is  not  this  the  most  striking'  of  that  class  of  passages,  in  which 
our  Savior  meant  one  thing,  but  the  disciples  understood  another. 
Such  were  the  instances  of  their  supposing  he  spoke  of  bread, 
when  he  meant  the  leaven  of  the  Pharisees,  Math.  xvi.  12:  of 
their  understanding  sleep,  when  he  meant  that  Lazarus  was  dead, 
John  xi.  13 :  of  their  not  comprehending  him  when  he  spoke  of 
being  put  to  death  and  rising  again,  Luke  xviii.  34,  and  John  xx. 
9:  and  when  he  said,  "Fear  not,  daughter  of  Zion,  behold  thy 
king  cometh  to  thee,  sitting  upon  an  ass's  colt."  John  xii.  15. 
In  these  instances,  they  were  undeeeivd  at  a  suitable  time,  some- 
times immediately,  as  in  the  case  of  Lazarus;  sometimes  long 
after,  as  in  the  instance  of  his  resurection.  Now  when  the  disci- 
ples replyd,  "Lord,  behold  here  are  two  swords,"  Luke  xxii.  38, 
he  did  not  then  undeceiv  them;  because  neither  the  time,  nor 
place,  nor  circumstances,  calld  for  the  explanation.  He  there- 
fore only  replyd,  "it  is  enough,"  which  it  is  presumd  will  be 
admitted  to  be  equivalent  to  a  prohibition  against  buying  any  more. 
This  of  itself  is  conclusiv  to  show,  that  Jesus  did  not  mean  them  to 
arm  themselves;  but  that  the  two  swords  were  only  needed  to  enable 
him  at  a  suitable  time  to  enforce  his  meaning.  Acordingly,  that  occa- 
sion arrived,  when  Peter  had  drawn  his  sword,  and  struck  off  the 
ear  of  the  high  priest's  servant.  Matt.  xxvi.  51.  Our  Savior  then 
by  a  miracle  restored  the  ear,  thus  repairing  instantly  the  injury 
done,  and  furnishing  conclusiv  testimony,  had  he  not  said  a  word, 
that  he  condemnd  the  act  of  Peter.  But  not  content  with  this  unequi- 
vocal proof  of  disapprobation,  he  adds,  "Put  up  again  thy  sword 
into  its  place,  for  all  they  that  take  the  sword  shall  perish  with 
the  sword."  Now  let  us  state  any  paralel  case  between  father 
and  child,  teacher  and  scholar,  master  and  servant,  ruler  and  sub- 
ject.  Let  the  son,  the  pupil,  the  domestic,  the  citizen  do  what 
they  conceiv  to  be  their  duty,  by  the  parent,  instructor,  master, 
governor;  and  let  these  only  exhibit  similar  acts  and  sentiments, 


144 

and  who  could  doubt  a  moment  that  they  amounted  to  the  clearest 
condemnation. 

•4.  I  am  disposed  to  regard  this  passage  in  another  very  im- 
portant light.  The  previous  passages  furnish  an  instance  of  our 
Savior's  preparing  Peter  with  full  notice,  for  a  severe  rebuke  of 
his  self-confidence  ^  may  not  this  passage  have  been  introduced 
by  Jesus,*  (knowing  that  they  had  the  swords,  knowing  what 
their  remark  would  be,  and  knowing  how  Peter  would  use  one 
of  them,)  in  order  to  afford  him  the  fittest  opportunity,  not  by 
precept  merely,  as  when  John  and  James  would  have  calld  down 
fire  from  heaven,  Luke  ix.  54 — but  by  a  most  striking  example, 
to  reprove  the  fiery  zeal,  and  readiness  to  shed  blood,  on  the  part  of 
Peter?  If  our  Savior  had  neither  heald  the  ear,  nor  spoken  as  he 
did  to  Peter,  would  not  the  argument  in  favor  of  arms  and  mili- 
tary warfare  hav  been  conclusiv?  Surely  then  the  opposit  infer- 
ence must  be  equaly  clear,  from  an  opposit  state  of  facts. 

5.  Let  me  add  another  remark.  Was  not  the  whole  passage 
from  ver.  36  to  ver.  38  intended  to  prepare  the  way  for  ilustrating 
in  the  conduct  of  Peter,  the  striking  difference  between  the  cou- 
rage and  weapons  of  the  soldier,  which  Christ  needed  not  but  con- 
demnd,  and  the  fortitude  and  spiritual  arms,  which  he  requird 
and  approvd  in  his  disciples?  Was  it  not  intended  to  furnish  a 
noble  comentary  on  the  texts,  "Resist  not  evil,"  "Love  your 
enemys,"  "Bless  them  that  curse  you,"  &c.  Is  not  this  the 
commentary?  Follow  not  the  ways  of  the  world,  which  rejoices 
to  return  evil  for  evil,f  which  covets  the  opportunity  and  the 
means  to  chastise  those  who  oppose  or  offend  it.  But  I  say  unto 
you,  "with  the  power  to  punish,  punish  not:  with  the  sword  at  your 
side,  draw  it  not?"  Was  it  not  as  tho'  Christ  had  said,  "  With 
the  strongest  temptation  to  break  the  law  of  love,  humility,  for- 
bearance, forgivness,  forget  not,  that  the  very  temptation  is  to  be 
the  test  of  your  faithfulness.  Sell  your  garment  and  buy  a  sword, 
to  prove  your  self-command  and  lowliness  of  spirit,  that  the  world, 
when  they  see  you  armd,  may  be  struck  by  the  astonishing  fact, 
that  the  sword  itself  is  with  the  faithful  disciple  of  the  meek  and 

*  We  have  a  very  happy  ilustration  of  this  mode  of  proceeding  in  John,  ch.  vi.  5: 
When  Christ  said  to  Philip,  where  shall  we  buy  bread,  that  these  may  eat :  (and 
this  he  said  to  prove  him,  for  he  himself  knew  what  he  would  do?) 

f  How  are  we  shocked  at  the  sentiment  of  Chateaubriand,  (Genie  du  Christme. 
p.  2,  b.  5,  ch.  4,)  when  speaking  of  the  disdainful  spirit  manifested  by  men  of  strong 
minds  towards  Christianity,  he  says)  "  and  which  (religion)  would  very  justly  return 
eonternpt  for  contempt." 


145 

lowly  Jesus,  not  an  instrument  of  violence,  but  a  trial  of  bis  pa- 
tience and  love,  and  a  test  of  his  obedience  and  self-command." 
Is  not  this  consistent  with  the  whole  scheme  of  Christian  proba- 
tion? Now,  Peter  had  boasted,  "Lord,  I  am  ready  to  go  with 
thee  both  into  prison  and  to  death,"  and  of  this  he  gave  unequi- 
vocal proof,  according  to  the  world's  notions,  by  the  act  of  vio- 
lence which  he  committed.  But  this  mode  of  ilustrating  his 
devotion  was  condemnd  on  the  part  of  our  Savior,  by  word  and 
deed.  And  when  Peter,  after  having  followd  him  to  the  high 
priest's  palace,  (another  unequivocal  proof,  according  to  the 
world's  ideas,  of  his  devotion,)  had  thrice  deny'd  him,  Jesus 
turnd  and  lookd  on  him,  to  reproach  and  condemn  his  want  of 
the  only  courage  that  becomes  a  Christian.  "Was  it  not  as  much 
as  to  say,  "  Thou  wast  ready  to  go  with  me  to  prison  and  death, 
provided  I  would  allow  thee  to  do  it  sword  in  hand,  and  with  the 
violence  of  armd  warfare;  but  thou  art  not  willing  to  follow  me 
to  prison  and  death,  in  the  only  way  I  approve,  with  the  fortitude 
of  faith,  not  with  the  resistance  of  valor?  The  sword  of  the  war- 
rior I  condemn:  the  sword  of  the  spirit  I  sanction  and  approve. 

6.  I  am  struck  by  another  view.  The  reason  assign'd  is  remark- 
able for  its  two-fold  application,  and  the  diference  between  them. 
As  apply'd  to  the  case  of  each  individual,  who  might  take  the 
sword,  it  is  not  universaly  and  strictly  true,  that  evry  such  per- 
son perishes  by  the  sword;  for  history  and  our  own  experience 
prove  the  contrary:  and  this  is  consistent  with  the  truth  of  pro- 
phecy, when  it  embraces  equaly  individuals  and  communitys. 
But  the  prediction  has  been  literaly  fulfilld  in  the  case  of  commu- 
nitys. All  nations  hav  not  only  been  tormented  by  the  sword, 
but  hav  succesivly  perishd  by  the  sword.  Now  war  is  a  national, 
not  an  individual  affair.  Is  not  then  the  prohibition,  "  Put  up  thy 
sword,"  especialy  applicable  to  war;  because  the  prophetic  rea- 
son assignd  has  been  so  strikingly  verify'd  in  the  case  of  war, 
for  what  is  the  history  of  mankind  but  the  history  of  war?  and  what 
is  the  history  of  nations  but  that  of  their  rise,  progres,  decline 
and  ruin  by  the  sword,  as  the  chief  instrument  alike  of  their  glory 
and  disgrace,  of  their  power  and  punishment. 

7.  Another  ilustration  seems  deserving  of  notice.  In  the  24th 
vers  there  was  a  strife  among  them,  which  should  be  accounted 
the  greatest.  He  rebukes  them  by  an  alusion  to  the  kings  of  the 
Gentiles,  who  exercise  lordship  over  them.  Hence  we  infer,  that 
the  dispute  related  to  temporal  greatness.     Now,  the  kings  of  the 

N 


146 

Gentiles  owd  their  greatnes  to  the  sword.  It  originated  in,  and  was 
maintaind  by  the  sword.  Was  not  the  rebuke  then  directly  this? 
Covet  not  the  greatnes,  which  is  inseparable  from  war.  And 
how  is  this  enforc'd?  "But  ye  shall  not  be  so;  but  he  that  is 
greatest  among  you,  let  him  be  as  the  younger:  and  he  that  is 
chief,  as  he  that  serveth."  Is  it  possible  to  imagin  a  more  striking 
and  comprehensiv  condemnation  of  the  whole  war  system;  for 
such  had  ever  been  the  Gentile  system?  The  practice  of  such 
precepts  is  impossible  in  war.  What  an  appropriate  rebuke  was 
it  afterwards,  when  Peter  employd  the  peculiar  instrument  of 
Gentile  greatnes  to  say,  "  Put  up  thy  sword."  I  hav  told  you, 
ver.  29,  "  I  appoint  unto  you  a  kingdom,  as  my  Father  hath  ap- 
pointed unto  me."  As  tho5  he  had  said,  my  kingdom  has  nothing 
in  common  with  the  kingdom  of  the  Gentiles,  no  violence,  or 
anger,  or  revenge,  or  war;  but  gentlenes,  self-control,  forgiv- 
nes,  peace.     Such  is  the  kingdom,  which  I  appoint  unto  you. 

8.  I  regard  the  act  and  sentiment  of  our  Savior,  as  intended  to 
draw  a  striking  contrast  between  the  Jewish  and  his  own  dispen- 
sation. A  country  had  been  strippd  of  its  inhabitants  by  the 
sword.  A  nation  in  their  stead,  rescu'd  out  of  Egypt  and  led 
thro3  the  wilderness  by  miracles,  was  planted  by  the  sword.  A 
civil  government  was  founded,  armd  with  the  sword,  and  the  law 
of  retaliation  was  a  prominent  feature  of  its  civil  code.  They  who 
could  ask,  "  Lord,  wilt  thou  at  this  time  restore  again  the  king- 
dom to  Israel?"  and  who  had  often  shown,  how  little  their  dark 
and  confus'd  understandings  comprehended  the  universal  and 
spiritual  character  of  the  kingdom  of  Christ,  were  very  likely  to 
employ,  in  the  administration  of  the  affairs  of  that  kingdom,  the 
very  instruments  which  Moses  and  Joshua,  Gideon  and  Jephthah, 
David,  and  indeed  all  the  saints  of  the  Old  Testament  dispensa- 
tion, had  employd  unrebuk'd.  When  therefore  he  had  spoken 
in  the  same  conversation  of  their  "sitting  on  thrones,  judging  the 
twelv  tribes  of  Israel,"  the  rebuke  must  have  been  felt  in  its  full 
force,  "  Put  up  thy  sword."  Was  it  not  as  much  as  to  say,  Moses 
and  all  who  followd  him,  employd  the  sword;  but  I  prohibit  it, 
forever,  in  my  kingdom.  My  kingdom  shall  be  establishd,  de- 
fended and  preservd;  but  needs  not  the  law  of  retaliation,  or  the 
sword.  Look  not  for  models  to  imitate  and  instruments  to  em- 
ploy, in  the  records  of  the  Mosaic  dispensation;  but  seek  for  thosj 
n  my  life,  and  for  these  in  the  sermon  on  the  Mount. 


147 


NOTE  P. 


Is  it  not  remarkable  that  Dymond  should  not  hav  notic'd  the  first 
of  the  precepts,  "Do  violence  to  no  man."  I  might  remark, 
that  the  Greek  word  might  well  be  translated  (as  Schleusner  has 
shown,  by  authority  and  ilustration,)  "put  no  man  in  fear," 
which,  as  the  preliminary  step,  contains  equaly  the  prohibition 
«  Do  violence  to  no  man."  Now,  war  is  a  system,  which  is  per- 
petualy  putting  others  in  fear,  both  the  innocent  and  the  guilty; 
and  is  perpetualy  doing  violence  to  both  classes  of  persons.  The 
prohibition  is  general.  The  exception  is  not  "  do  violence  to  no 
man,"  except  ye  ar  orderd  by  your  officers.  How  then,  consist- 
ently with  this  precept,  if  he  were  dispos'd,  out  of  an  honest  and 
good  heart,  to  keep  it  faithfuly,  could  a  soldier  put  an  enemy  in 
fear,  or  wound  or  maim,  much  less  kill  him?  If  we  are  to  interpret 
the  precept  in  its  simplicity,  who  can  doubt?  Besides,  the  com- 
mand is,  do  violence  to  no  man:  not  to  no  man  except  he  be  the 
enemy  of  your  country.  Nor  is  it  to  do  violence  only  to  the  ene- 
mys  of  your  country.  But  the  language  is,  do  violence  to  no  man. 
It  occurs  to  me,  that  Dymond  did  not  rely  on  this  passage  in  the 
answer  of  the  Baptist,  because  he  apprehended  that  the  third 
clause,  "  Be  content  with  your  wages,"  was  inconsistent  with  my 
interpretation  of  the  first.  But  I  apprehend  not.  Be  content 
with  your  wages,  relates  manifestly  not  to  the  first,  but  to  the 
second  clause,  "Neither  accuse  any  one  falsely,"  and  this  points 
undoubtedly  to  the  vile  corruption  of  the  Roman  soldiery,  growing 
out  of  the  civil  wars  of  Marius  and  Sylla,  of  Pompey  and  Caesar, 
of  Augustus  and  Anthony.  But  let  us  take  the  second  and  third 
precepts  independently.  Why  should  we  not  then  interpret  the 
first  and  second  thus?  Do  violence  to  no  man  at  any  time:  and 
be  content  with  your  wages  as  long  as  you  are  not  requir'd  to  do 
violence  to  any  one  ?  but  the  instant  you  are  requir'd  to  do  vio- 
lence to  any  man,  give  up  your  wages.  May  we  not  ilustrate  this 
by  the  command  of  Paul:  "  Servants  obey  in  all  things  your  mas- 
ters according  to  the  flesh."  But  can  it  be  doubted  the  meaning 
of  the  Apostle,  in  relation  to  the  case  of  a  Heathen  master  and 
Christian  servant,  is,  obey  in  all  things  that  are  lawful  in  a  Chris- 
tian servant.  I  take  it  to  be  the  same  in  the  case  of  John  the 
Baptist  and  the  soldiers.  It  is  well  remarkd  by  Dimond,  that  John 
confessedly  belongd  to  that  system,  which  requir'd  an  eye  for  an 
eye  and  a  tooth  for  a  tooth;  and  therefore  even  if  my  interpreta- 


148 

tion  be  rejected,  the  case  does  not  weaken  the  Christian  argu- 
ment. Besides,  the  soldiers  being-  heathen,  did  not  come  to  be 
baptis'd  as  the  publicans  did,  who  were  Jews.  I  take  it  no  hea- 
then became  the  disciple  of  John;  for  nothing  but  the  miraculous 
case  of  Cornelius  and  his  friends  could  convice  Peter,  and  those 
of  the  circumcision  who  were  with  him,  that  the  Gentiles  were  to 
be  brought  into  the  Christian  church.  John  therefore  might  very 
well  give  them  his  advice,  not  as  a  divine  teacher  sent  to  instruct, 
convert  and  baptise  them;  for  he  was  not  sent  to  them  at  all;  but 
as  a  matter  of  kindness,  without  being  calld  to  approve  or  con- 
demn their  mode  of  life. 


NOTE  Q. 

When  Frederick  set  out  for  Silesia  in  1740,  at  the  head  of 
80,000  men,  it  was  propos'd  that  his  standard  should  bear  the 
motto  "Pro  Deo  et  Patria,"  "For  God  and  Country."  But  the 
king  struck  out  the  word  God,  saying  it  was  not  proper  to  intro- 
duce the  name  of  the  Deity  in  the  quarrels  of  men;  adding,  that 
for  himself  he  was  going  to  war  for  a  province,  not  for  religion. 
What  a  rebuke  was  this  from  an  infidel  monarch  to  Christian  kings, 
and  still  more  to  all  professing  Christians,  when  they  use  the  name 
of  God  to  vindicate  wars  that  have  nothing  to  do  with  religion! 
No  war  indeed  can  have  any  rightful  connection  with  Christianity. 
Such  an  instrument,  it  is  presum'd,  no  one  in  our  age  can  advocate, 
as  a  lawful  means  for  the  advancement  of  religion.  But  if  such 
destruction  of  life,  happiness  and  property  cannot  be  justifyd  as 
a  means  for  the  attainment  of  the  highest  and  most  valuable  end, 
viz.  the  Christianization  of  men,  how  can  any  inferior  end  justify 
the  employment  of  such  an  instrument?  The  resort  to  arms  is 
justifyd  as  a  matter  of  right:  not  of  mere  power.  Of  course,  it 
must  rest  on  principles  of  duty,  not  of  selfishness,  caprice,  or  ex- 
pediency. Now,  if  such  means  are  unlawful  in  the  discharge  of 
our  highest  dutys,  how  can  they  be  lawful  in  the  discharge  of 
inferior  dutys  ?  If  I  cannot  rightfuly  kill  and  rob  my  fellow  men  to 
serv  God,  how  can  I  rightfuly  do  such  things  to  serv  myself ? 


149 


NOTE  R. 


To  the  honor  of  the  Episcopal  church  of  the  United  States,  let 
it  be  mentiond,  that  in  the  organization  of  the  American  church, 
this  feature  in  the  article  of  the  English  church  has  been  omitted 
by  the  latter.  What  a  singular  testimony  to  the  cause  of  peace, 
by  men  who  had  j  ust  come  out  of  the  war  of  the  revolution !  Shall 
we  not  confess  the  hand  of  an  overruling  Providence  in  this  clear 
and  absolute  refusal  to  acknowlege  the  Christian  lawfulness  of 
war?  The  clause  of  the  English  article  reads  thus:  "It  is  lawful 
for  Christian  men,  at  the  commandment  of  the  magistrate,  to  wear 
weapons  and  serv  in  the  wars."  If  any  one  wishes  to  be  satis- 
fyd  how  impossible  it  is  to  vindicate  war  on  Christian  principles, 
he  has  only  to  read  Burnet's  Commentary  on  this  clause  of  the 
article,  and  then  to  ask  himself  the  question,  "Is  it  possible  that  an 
apostle  would  hav  written  such  an  explanation  of  the  sermon  on 
the  Mount?"  It  is  not  less  remarkable,  that  the  same  article  of 
the  English  church  asserts  the  lawfulness  of  capital  punishment 
for  heinous  and  grievous  offences,  whilst  the  corresponding  article 
of  the  Episcopal  church  is  silent  on  the  subject.  What  indeed  is 
war  hut  a  gigantic  system  of  capital  punishments  of  the  innocent  for 
the  guilty ,  administerd  by  armys  and  navys,  instead  of  the  execu- 
tioner P 


NOTE  S. 

Vespasian  acted  on  Paley's  principle,  when  he  allowd  the 
slaughter  at  Varichex;  for  his  friends  persuaded  him  that  nothing 
against  the  Jews  could  be  any  impiety:  and  that  he  ought  to  prefer 
what  was  profitable,  before  what  was  fit  to  be  done,  where  both 
could  not  be  made  consistent.  Josephus,  The  War,  b.  3,  ch.  10, 
§  10.  This  example  contains,  in  fact,  the  whole  substance  of  the 
doctrin  of  war.  It  is  expediency,  according  to  human  calcula- 
tion, setting  aside  duty  according  to  divine  commands. 


N2 


150 


NOTE  T. 


It  appears  to  me,  that  a  striking  ilustration  of  the  absolute  duty 
and  expediency  of  a  simple  acquiescence  in  the  peace  principles 
of  the  sermon  on  the  Mount,  may  be  deriv'd  from  human  institu- 
tions. The  principle  contended  for  by  Paley  and  such  other 
writers  is,  that  men  have  the  right  to  make  an  exception  in  favor 
of  war,  altho'  it  is  admitted  that  war  "is  nothing  less  than  a  tem- 
porary repeal  of  all  the  principles  of  virtue:"  and  that  "  it  is  a 
system,  out  of  which  almost  all  the  virtues  ar  excluded,  and  in 
which  nearly  all  the  vices  ar  incorporated."  Now  let  us  apply 
the  principle  to  the  case  of  human  institutions.  What  writer,  on 
the  principles  of  social  law,  which  governs  communitys  within 
themselvs,  or  in  relation  to  each  other,  ever  could  or  would  ac- 
knowlege  in  the  subject  of  a  monarchy  or  the  citizen  of  a  repub- 
lic, such  a  dispensing  power.  When  the  human  legislator  has 
spoken,  no  individual,  or  combination  of  individuals  can  exercise 
such  a  power  of  dispensation,  as  that  contended  for  by  the  advo- 
cates of  war.  The  human  lawgiver  makes  exceptions  to  his  own 
rules,  according  to  his  own  judgment;  but  he  recognises  no  simi- 
lar discretionary  power  in  those  for  whom  he  legislates.  To  ex- 
ercise such  a  power^  is  to  invade  his  prerogativ.  There  ar  cases, 
in  which  the  human  legislator  offers  an  alternativ;  and  then  the 
discretion  of  the  individual  is  limited  to  a  decision  between  the 
two  parts  of  that  alternativ.  If  however  he  offers  no  alternativ, 
but  simply  commands  or  prohibits,  and  annexes  a  punishment, 
whether  fine  or  imprisonment,  the  scourge  or  the  gallows,  the 
individual  cannot  lawfuly  disobey;  if  he  acknowleges  the  right 
of  the  legislator  to  make  the  law.  He  cannot  rightfuly  violate 
the  law  by  submitting  even  voluntarily,  to  the  appointed  punish- 
ment; for  the  lawmaker  does  not  establish  the  punishment  as  an 
end,  but  only  as  a  means.  The  individual  cannot  therefore  substi- 
tute the  means  for  the  end  ;  because  in  so  doing  he  defeats  the  object 
of  the  law,  and  thwarts  the  rightful  purpose;  whilst  he  denys  the 
authority  of  the  lawgiver.  It  seems  to  me,  that  no  one  can  ques- 
tion the  soundness  of  these  principles  and  conclusions.  If  then 
they  ar  acknowleg'd  in  the  case  of  human  laws,  on  what 
grounds  can  they  be  doubted  in  the  case  of  divine  laws?  These 
ar  of  higher  authority,  of  more  extensiv  aplication,  of  greater 
importance,  and  of  a  more  durable  character,  than  those.  Is  it 
possible  then,  that  a  principle  can  be  admitted  for  the  suspension 


151 

or  repeal  of  divine  laws,  which  is  utterly  rejected  in  the  case  of 
human  laws?  If  such  a  principle  be  deny'd  in  the  instance  of  an 
inferior  obligation,  how  can  it  be  conceded  in  that  of  a  superior? 
Let  us  take  an  ilustration  from  human  codes.  All  writers  agree 
that  the  members  of  a  community  ar  bound  to  obey  its  laws. 
But  some  hav  made  a  distinction  between  those  laws,  which  pro- 
hibit that  which  is  evil  in  itself,  as  murder,  robbery,  perjury,,  and 
those  which  forbid  what  is  merely  inexpedient  in  the  opinion  of 
each  community,  as  the  killing  of  particular  birds  or  animals,  the 
regulation  of  weights  and  measures,  &c.  I  shall  not  examin  the 
soundness  of  the  distinction,  which  however  I  utterly  deny;  but 
for  the  sake  of  argument  shall  grant  it.  Then  upon  the  very 
principles  of  this  distinction,  nothing  can  justify  war;  because 
murder  and  robbery  are  clearly  evils  in  themselves  even  in  a  human 
code.  But  no  such  distinction  can  be  acknowleg'd,  in  a  code  of 
moral  laws,  divinely  given  to  man.  The  distinction  in  the  case 
of  human  codes  turns  upon  this,  that  what  is  evil  in  itself  is  made 
such  by  a  higher  authority  than  that  of  man,  viz.  by  the  law  of 
nature  or  by  revelation.  The  very  fact  that  nature  or  the  Bible 
forbids  an  act,  is  acknowleg'd  as  taking  away  all  discretion  over 
the  subject;  and  that  when  society  has  annexd  a  penalty  to  the 
violation  of  the  law,  no  individual  can  justify  or  even  excuse  him- 
self for  a  breach  of  the  law,  by  submitting  to  the  penalty  impos'd. 
The  very  ground  then  on  which  the  distinction  rests,  shows  that 
in  the  case  of  a  divine  law,  men  can  have  no  discretionary  power 
to  make  exceptions.  The  exceptions  must  be  found  in  the  divine 
code  itself,  or  must  be  so  clearly  deduc'd  from  its  principles,  and 
so  clearly  sustaind  by  examples,  as  to  leav  no  doubt. 


NOTE  U. 

Is  it  possible  to  believ,  that  Jesus  Christ  did  not  intend  his 
moral  precepts  to  bind  the  consciences  of  rulers  as  well  as  of  in- 
dividuals ?  He  did  or  he  did  not.  If  he  did  not  as  to  any  one 
precept,  neither  did  he  as  to  all  the  rest;  for  he  has  made  no  dif- 
ference. Now,  if  he  intended  none  of  them  to  bind,  it  follows, 
that  Christian  rulers  as  public  men,  ar  no  more  bound  by  the 
moral  obligations  ofreveald  religion  than  heathen  rulers.  Will  any 
one  contend  for  this  }     I  answer  with  confidence  no  one.     Then 


152 

he  meant  all  his  precepts  to  bind  equaly  rulers  and  private 
men.  It  is  vain  to  argue,  as  Paley  and  all  his  coadjutors  do,  on 
principles  of  expediency,  and  the  assumed  necessity  of  a  difference 
between  public  and  private  affairs.  The  simple  and  unanswer- 
able reply  is — the  religion  of  Jesus  Christ  is  of  paramount  au- 
thority; superior  to  all  human  laws  and  institutions,  and  designd 
to  abolish  all  that  are  inconsistent  with  its  principles.  It  is  a  re- 
ligion of  divine  obligation,  and  never  can  be  subject  to  the  rules 
of  human  calculation  and  compromise. 

Jesus  Christ  did  not  ordain  his  precepts  for  the  government  of 
heathen  rulers;  because  he  intended  that  all  heathen  rulers  should 
be  converted  and  become  Christians.  Now,  the  instant  a  heathen 
ruler  became  a  Christian,  he  must  either  hav  acknowleg'd  Chris- 
tian obligation  to  be  binding  on  him,  both  as  a  public  and  a  pri- 
vate man,  or  he  must  hav  abandond  his  office.  If  as  a  private 
man,  he  could  not  worship  idols,  could  he  as  a  public  man  pro- 
mote idolatry?  If  as  an  individual  he  could  not  steal  or  rob  from 
those  who  had  stolen  from  or  robbd  his  own  family,  could  he  as 
an  officer  justify  theft  or  robbery  against  a  neighboring  nation, 
which  had  committed  such  crimes  against  his  country  P  If  as  a 
father,  son,  husband,  brother,  he  could  not  rightfuly  kill  those 
who  had  murderd  his  children  or  parents,  his  wife  or  sisters, 
how  could  he  as  a  ruler  justly  in  war  cause  the  death  of  thousands 
of  the  innocent  among  his  own  subjects,  as  well  as  among  his  ene- 
mys,  to  punish  one,  perhaps  a  dozen,  who  had  insulted  him,  or 
injur'd  the  crew  of  a  ship,  or  the  people  of  a  city?  We  hold  it  to 
be  impossible  on  Christian  principles,  and  only  possible  on 

HEATHEN". 

One  consideratian  strikes  me  as  of  great  importance.  There  is 
not  a  virtue  of  private  life,  which  is  not  also  calld  for  in  public  life ; 
and  calld  for,  under  higher  sanctions  and  for  more  important  purpo- 
ses. Hence,  if  we  could  conceiv  of  a  code  of  morals  for  public  men, 
as  distinct  from  one  for  private  life,  it  would  be  distinguishd  by 
these  features.  Its  rules  would  be  more  comprehensiv  and  severe, 
its  promises  more  animating,  its  denunciations  more  terrible,  and 
in  would  breathe  a  purer,  nobler,  holier  morality,  than  the  sys- 
tem designd  for  private  life.  But  what  scheme  can  be  imagind 
for  public  life,  which  shall  exhibit  these  qualities  in  a  higher  de- 
gree, than  the  Christian  ?  But  the  Christian  is  the  last  revelation 
man  is  taught  to  expect.  This,  then,  is  a  code  both  of  public  and 
private  morals,  or  mankind  never  has  had,  and  never  will  hav  a 


153 

code  of  public  morals.  But,  it  will  be  granted,  that  society  never 
has  existed  without  such  a  public  code  ;  and  that  in  all  ages  and 
countrys  among  the  heathen,  the  public  has  differd  from  the 
private  code,  only  in  the  features  I  hav  mentiond.  Christianity 
then,  as  a  substitute  for  heathenism,  is  necesarily  a  substitute  for 
its  code  of  public,  as  well  as  for  its  code  of  private  morals ;  for 
they  ar  in  truth  inseparable  in  theory,  as  they  ever  hav  been  in 
practice. 

The  same  maybe  said  of  vices.  There  is  not  one  that  degrades 
and  impairs  the  worth  and  usefulness  of  a  man  in  private  life, 
which  does  not  produce  similar  efects  in  a  greater  degree  in  the 
case  of  the  public  man.  It  is  because  he  cannot  do  his  duty  as  a 
public  man,  if  he  hav  not  the  virtues,  and  be  not  free  from  the 
vices  of  the  private  man,  that  he  is  bound  to  shun  these  and 
possess  those. 

All  concede  that  the  example  and  influence  of  rulers  is  of  the 
last  importance  in  morals,  manners,  education,  religion.  Must 
they  not,  then,  from  the  necessity  of  the  case,  from  the  very  na- 
ture of  their  stations,  be  under  a  double  obligation  to  do  as  public 
men  all  that  Christianity  exacts  of  them  as  private  men?  Can 
they  as  public  men,  revile  and  slander  others;  misrepresent  and 
conceal  the  truth,  return  injury s,  strike  down  the  insolent,  or  be- 
come duelists  to  punish  a  sarcasm  or  an  insult  on  their  public 
character,  when,  for  the  same  things  done  to  them  in  their  pri- 
vate capacity,  Christian  morals  would  restrain  them  ?  Heathen- 
ism may  justify  such  distinctions,  but  Christianity  cannot. 

Again  it  is  simply  impossible,  that  there  can  be  a  code  of  morals 
only  for  individuals,  first,  because  moral  rules  ar  social  rules  in 
their  very  nature;  and  second,  because,  except  in  the  case  of  the 
hermit,  the  solitary  prisoner,  or  the  cast  away  on  a  desolate 
island,  man  never  has  existed  but  in  society.  All  moral  precepts 
ar  then  ordaind  with  a  view  to,  and  for  the  sake  of  society. 
Would  it  not  then  be  exceedingly  strange  that  such  rules  should 
not  be  obligatory  upon  those,  on  whom  society  so  much  depended, 
for  its  moral  tone  and  improvement?  Moral  rules  are  establishd 
for  the  sake  of  society.  So  are  rulers.  Must  not  these  then  be 
subject  to  those;  since  both  are  but  means  or  instruments  ordaind 
for  the  same  purpose  ? 

It  is  conceded  that  all  public  institutions  are  founded  on  the 
relations  and  morals  of  private  life ;  that  those  depend  for  their 
purity,  strength,  value  and  improvement,  upon  these.     Is  it  not 


154 

then  obvious,  that  the  system  of  public  must,  if  faithfully  admin- 
isterd,  conform  to  the  system  of  private  morals  ?  If  then  the 
Christian  be  the  code  of  private  morals  in  any  country,  the  ruler 
must  be  subject  to  the  same;  because  public  morals  ar  the  crea- 
ture of  private :  and  the  only  sufficient  standard  of  public  morals 
is  the  only  true  standard  of  private,  viz:  the  New  Testament.  If 
the  question  be  askd  what  is  a  ruler  to  do,  whose  standard  of 
morals  is  higher  than  that  of  the  community.  The  answer  is  very 
plain.  Let  him  do  his  Christian  duty  as  a  public  man,  without 
fear  or  favor;  and  the  instant  he  cannot  let  him  resist.  How 
common  is  the  remark  that  a  people  will  not  bear  abetter  govern- 
ment than  they  ar  fit  for.  But  the  argument  of  Paley  and  his 
auxiliarys  is  that  rulers  hav  a  right  to  administer  the  government 
on  moral  principles,  inferior  to  those  which  ar  acknowleg'd  to  be 
the  moral  standard  of  the  community.  In  other  words,  they  hav 
a  right  and  indeed  ar  bound,  as  public  men  to  violate  and  dishonor 
the  moral  standard  of  the  community.  Can  such  be  Christian  rulers  ? 
Ar  they  not  heathen? 

Again.  Did  not  Jesus  Christ  know  that  the  time  would  come, 
when  there  would  be  Christian  nations  and  Christian  rulers } 
Is  it  then  possible,  that  he  meant  to  ordain  no  code  of  morals  for 
public  men!  Did  he  mean  the  rulers  of  Christian  communitys 
to  be  Christians  in  all  their  private,  but  heathens  in  all  their  public 
relations  ?  Is  there  any  other  alternativ  unless  we  adopt  as  a  pre- 
cept of  Christian  morals,  the  dangerous  and  inconsistent  rule,  that 
they  ar  to  be  Christians  in  all  their  public  relations,  except  when 
calculations  of  human  expediency  call  for  a  departure.  Then  they 
may  justify  robbery  and  murder,  fraud,  falsehood  and  deception, 
prevarication,  concealment  and  misrepresentation,  violence  and 
hypocrisy  in  all  their  countless  forms.  Can  this  be  reconcil'd  to 
the  moral  code  of  Jesus?  Could  such  rulers  be  members  of  his 
spiritual  body,  and  heirs  of  everlasting  life  ?  But  is  it  not  seen, 
will  it  not  be  acknowleg'd,  that  the  great  beauty  and  excelence 
of  the  Christian  system  lie  here,  that  it  is  a  code  of  morals  of  su- 
preme authority  for  the  government  of  man  in  all  his  private  rela- 
tions, because  they  are  the  basis  of  all  his  public,  civil  and  political 
relations.  The  heathen  system  reversd  this  order;  for  there  the 
public  code  made  any  thing  right  or  wrong  in  the  individual;  be- 
cause there  was  no  private  code  of  paramount  authority.  But  the 
Christian  scheme  binds  the  individual  in  all  his  private  and  social 
relations,  indissolubly,  universaly.     Hence,  whatever  is  right  or 


155 

wrong  in  private,  is  equaly  so  in  public  life;  because  no  human 
power  can  releas  him  in  public  life,  from  the  obligations  which 
bind  him  in  private.  The  heathen,  on  entering  public  life  sub- 
jects his  whole  scheme  of  private  morals  to  the  public  will.  He 
may  execute  his  sons  with  Brutus  and  Manlius,  or  murder  his 
daughter  with  Virginius.  He  may  commit  suicide  with  Seneca 
or  Lucan,  or  sell  his  debtor  and  family,  like  the  Roman  creditor. 
He  may  cast  out  his  deformd  children,  murder  or  intoxicate  his 
slaves,  and  teach  his  son  the  arts  of  a  thief,  with  Lycurgus.  But 
the  Christian,  when  he  enters  public  life,  subjects  all  his  official 
conduct  to  the  supreme  obligations  of  the  Christian  code;  for 
there  is  no  human  power  that  can  repeal  or  dispens  with  their 
paramount  authority.  He  is  a  Christian  before  he  is  a  ruler;  and 
he  cannot  lawfuly  cease  to  be  a  Christian,  because  he  becomes  a 
ruler.  I  may  add  another  argument.  Why  should  the  public 
man  be  exempt  from  any  of  the  Christian  obligations  of  the  pri- 
vate man  ?  Does  not  the  private  man  belong  to  the  community? 
Is  he  not  bound  to  promote  its  advancement  in  virtue,  knowlege 
and  happiness,  to  the  full  extent  of  his  means  and  opportunitys, 
just  as  much  as  the  public  man?  Is  he  not  thus  bound  by  Chris- 
tian obligations,  and  can  he  employ  other  than  Christian  means? 
When  he  becomes  a  public  man,  how  ar  the  nature  and  extent 
of  the  obligations  changd?  The  only  difference  that  I  can  see 
is,  that  the  very  people,  whom  he  was  previously  bound  as  a 
Christian  to  serv,  hav  appointed  him  to  serv  them  in  a  field  of 
more  enlargd  usefulness.  But  ar  not  the  ends,  the  acts,  4the 
means,  the  motivs  the  same  ?  Is  there  any  difference  ?  except  that 
the  sphere  of  duty  is  higher  and  more  comprehensiv;  the  objects 
more  important;  the  consequences  more  desirable;  and  the  num- 
ber of  persons  actualy  affected,  incomparably  greater?  And  is 
it  possible  that  these  can  be  reasons  for  relaxing  the  force  and 
curtailing  the  extent  of  Christian  obligation  ?  Ar  they  not,  on  the 
contrary,  unanswerable  reasons  for  requiring  in  the  public  man, 
a  more  scrupulous  and  stern  regard  for  the  obligations  of  Chris- 
tian morals,  than  is  exacted  of  the  private  ?  I  insist  upon  it  then, 
that  the  New  Testament  is  the  only  genuin  moral  constitution 
of  society,  and  its  principles  the  only  safe  and  wise  foundation  of  all 
civil  and  political  establishments.*     I  insist  that  the  Christian  is 

*  See  Address  of  T.  S.  Grimke  on  the  character  and  objects  of  Science,  before 
the  Literary  and  Philosophical  Society  of  South  Carolina,  p.  28.  New  Haven,  1831. 


156 

equaly  the  moral  code  of  public  and  private  life.  I  insist  that  the 
ruler  is  bound  by  it  in  his  public  capacity  because  he  is  a  Chris- 
tian and  not  a  heathen. — Ed. 


NOTE  V. 

The  whole  of  PaleyV  argument  amounts,  undoubtedly,  to  these 
contradictions:  as  individuals,  we  cannot  lawfuly  do  evil  that  good 
may  come  of  it;  but  as  public  men  we  may:  as  individuals  we  can- 
not innocently  act  on  the  principle,  that  the  end  justify s  the 
means;  but  as  public  men,  we  may:  as  private  persons,  we  cannot 
rightfuly  kill,  rob,  defraud  or  commit  perjury;  but  as  public  men 
we  may.  Can  that  system  of  public  morals  be  Christian  which 
acknowleges  these  rules?  Again,  as  private  men,  we  cannot 
lawfuly  punish  the  innocent  by  killing,  imprisoning  or  robbing 
them,  to  compel  the  guilty  to  do  us  justice;  but  as  public  men  we 
may.  The  private  man  cannot  innocently  punish  the  servant;  be- 
cause his  master  has  insulted  or  defrauded  him;  but  the  public  man 
may  slay  or  imprison  the  subject,  and  may  even  make  widows  and 
orphans  of  countless  wives  and  children,  and  reduce  them  to 
poverty,  because  their  rulers  have  acted  insolently  or  unjustly. 
The  private  man  cannot  rightfuly  practise  frauds  and  deceptions, 
concealment  and  misrepresentations,  to  redress  injurys  or  avenge 
insults;  for  if  he  does,  he  will  be  counted  a  cheat,  a  liar,  or  a 
swindler.  But  the  very  acts,  thus  branded  as  infamous  in  the 
private  man,  are  extolld  as  glorious  and  praiseworthy  in  the  naval 
or  military  commander.  Let  any  one  turn  to  history  and  read 
what  ar  calld  the  stratagems  of  war,  and  judg,  whether  a  private 
man  would  not  be  degraded  in  his  opinion,  if  he  should  employ 
similar  means,  for  the  attainment  of  similar  ends.  Must  not  the 
natural  tendency  of  history  then  in  its  existing  forms,  be  to  de- 
prave the  moral  sense  of  youth,  and  to  interfere  with  the  pure 
and  simple  standard  of  Christian  morals?  No  one  can  doubt,  who 
admits  that  history  does  influence  the  minds  and  hearts  of  its 
youthful  readers. 


15T 


NOTE  W. 


The  same  remark  may  be  made  of  Dr.  Dwight's  Sermon  on 
killing.  Sermon  115,  4th  vol.  p.  167,  168.  Is  it  not  absolutely 
amazing  that  the  reconcilableness  of  wars  with  the  New  Testa* 
ment  is  dispos'd  of  by  Christian  ministers  thus  briefly  and  confi- 
dently? Wars  almost  universaly  involv  the  commission  of  the 
greatest  crimes  and  indulgence  in  the  greatest  vices.  They  blind 
and  brutalize  both  the  people  and  their  rulers,  and  destroy  life, 
and  property,  and  happiness,  to  an  incalculable  extent.  They 
hav  been  the  instruments  of  tyrany,  injustice,  and  oppression,  of 
ambition,  avarice,  and  revenge,  both  at  home  and  abroad:  hav 
overthrown  governments,  with  which  the  people  were  satisfy'd, 
and  enslav'd  unoffending  nations.  In  short,  they  hav  made  the 
history  of  mankind  little  less  than  a  record  of  fraud  and  violence, 
of  murder  and  robbery,  of  rebellion  and  usurpation,  of  national 
crimes  and  national  punishments.  If  all  this  be  duly  considerd, 
how  is  it  possible  that  Christians  do  not  see,  that  Christianity,  as 
a  religion  of  justice,  humanity,  love,  forbearance,  and  forgivness, 
must  hav  contemplated,  and  does  require  the  total  abolition  of  war. 
I  agree  to  the  maxim,  that  the  mere  abuse  of  a  thing  does  not 
render  its  use  unlawful  or  inexpedient?  but  I  also  assert  as  a  maxim 
equaly  indisputable,  that,  whenever  an  institution  has  been  abus'din 
the  vast  majority  of  instances,  and  has  faild  to  produce  the  great 
ends  for  which  it  is  claimd,  viz.  the  good  of  the  people,  even  the 
heathen  are  bound  to  abandon  it  on  mere  principles  of  human  ex- 
pediency. How  then  shall  the  Christian  vindicate  war,  an  instru- 
ment which  in  ninety-nine  out  of  evry  hundred  cases,  causes 
misery  and  ruin  to  the  people,  tho'  it  brings  sport  and  glory  to 
their  rulers?  War,  heathenism,  ignorance,  superstition,  and  des- 
potism, hav  been  tryd  for  nearly  sixty  centurys:  and  hav  been 
found  almost  invariably  to  be  the  instruments  of  the  tyrant  and 
oppressor,  of  the  enemy s  of  God  and  man.  Yet  they  still  prevail; 
because  Christians  vindicate  all  but  heathenism,  tho'  the  rest  are 
the  select,  the  peculiar  instruments  of  heathenism.  Shall  the 
time  never  come,  when  Christians  shall  employ  only  Christian  means  ? 
Shall  the  sermon  on  the  mount  never  be  the  law  for  nations  and 
rulers,  as  well  as  for  the  private  man?  We  answer,  it  shall  be, 
just  as  surely  as  Christ  livd  to  bless  communitys  as  well  as  indi- 
viduals; and  died  to  save  the  ruler  as  well  as  the  subject. 

o 


158 

NOTE  X. 

It  appears  to  me  that  Dymond  has  not  dwelt  sufficiently  on 
civil  obedience:  and  has  not  pointed  out  with  the  necessary  dis- 
tinctness, the  land-marks  which  separate  the  case  of  war  from 
that  of  ordinary  obedience  to  the  magistrate.  War  is  undoubtedly 
defended  by  its  advocates,  on  the  ground,  that  it  is  a  means  not 
an  end.  No  one  would  vindicate  the  institution  of  a  military  re- 
public, the  very  end  of  whose  being-  should  be  war.  We  hav  now 
no  advocates  of  Grecian  and  Roman  institutions,  any  more  than  of 
the  feudal  system,  and  the  orders  of  chivalry.  These  were  all 
founded  on  the  principles,  that  war  is  the  noblest  employment  of 
man;  that  it  is  inseparable  from  the  best  forms  of  government, 
and  the  best  constituted  states  of  society;  and  that  peace  is  not  so 
much  the  object  to  be  obtaind  by  war,  as  war  is  itself  the  very 
end  of  peace.  Peace  was  but  a  truce  in  war,  not  war  a  suspen- 
sion of  peace.  But  these  sentiments  hav,  in  a  great  measure, 
perishd  among  Christian  nations.  While,  however,  peace  is  al- 
io wd  to  be  the  true  natural  state  of  man,  both  at  home  and  abroad, 
it  is  still  insisted,  that  all  defensiv  war  is  lawful,  and  that  offen- 
siv  war,  having  realy  a  defensiv  character  is  equaly  so.  Now, 
the  only  instrument  of  war  is  the  taking  of  life.  I  say  the  only  in- 
strument; because,  altho*  imprisonment,  the  destructiom  of  pro- 
perty by  land  and  by  sea,  the  seizure  and  confiscation  of  goods, 
intimidation,  and  a  variety  of  stratagems,  ar  also  employd;  yet 
these  are  but  subordinate  means,  incident  to  the  chief  means,  the 
right  to  kill.  So  entirely  is  this  the  case,  and  so  absolutely  true 
is  it,  that  the  right  to  take  life  is  the  sole  basis  of  the  war  system, 
that  if  this  claim  be  abandond,  the  war  system  must  perish.  Ail 
the  implements  of  war,  all  the  education  of  the  officers  and  sol- 
diers, all  the  science  of  the  engineer  and  tactician,  hav  but  two 
objects  in  view,  to  destroy  the  enemy,  whom  they  assert  the  right  to 
kill,  and  to  defend  themselvs,  whom  they  admit  that  the  enemy  in 
his  opinion,  at  least,  hav  the  same  right  to  kill.  The  arts  of  war, 
and  the  profession  of  arms  would  hav  no  existence  then,  if  the 
sixth  commandment  "thou  shalt  not  kill,"  be  acknowleg'd  as 
equaly  the  law  of  nations  and  individuals.  Here,  then,  is  at  once 
the  broad,  palpable  distinction  between  the  system  of  war  and 
that  of  civil  government.  The  first  cannot  exist  without  the  right 
to  kill,  the  other  can.  In  the  former,  the  right  to  kill  is  the  very 
soul,  the  whole  life  of  the  system:  in  the   latter,  it  is  a  mere 


159 

question  of  expediency.  To  abolish  the  entire  war  system  by  en- 
forcing- the  commandment,  "  thou  shalt  not  kill,"  leavs,  therefore, 
the  whole  civil  system  untouchd.  Hence  it  is  obvious,  that  the  de- 
nial of  the  lawfulness  of  war  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  question  of 
obedience  to  the  magistrate.  It  has,  indeed,  no  other  efect,  than 
to  apply  to  the  authority  of  the  civil  magistrate  on  the  question  of 
war,  the  same  rule,  which  governs  in  the  case  of  capital  punish- 
ment. The  magistrate  requires  me  to  sit  on  a  jury,  which  is  to 
try  a  man  for  his  life:  or  he  enjoins  upon  me  to  carry  into  efect 
the  sentence  of  capital  punishment,  as  the  executioner.  If  I  ad- 
mitted his  right  to  take  life,  I  could  not  lawfuly  refuse;  but  as  I 
deny  this  right,  I  must  refuse.  I  refuse  to  bear  arms,  because  I 
deny  that  he  can  lawfuly  take  life.  I  refuse  to  be  a  public  exe- 
cutioner, for  the  same  reason.  This  is  the  whole  extent  to  which 
the  authority  of  the  civil  magistrate  is  interfer'd  with  by  obedience 
to  the  precept,  "thou  shalt  not  kill."  I  refuse  to  hav  any  hand 
in  war  in  any  form  or  manner;  because  it  is,  in  my  opinion,  a  sys- 
tem of  murder.  I  refuse  to  hav  any  hand  in  the  execution  of 
laws  which  assert  the  right  to  kill:  because  I  cannot  innocently  be 
the  instrument  of  taking  life.  This  principle  is  the  polar  star  of 
my  obedience.  Whatever  the  object  may  be,  however  laudable 
or  useful,  I  refuse,  to  obey,  if  the  efect  of  obedience  is  to  destroy  life. 
We  are  now  prepar'd  to  ask  the  question,  how  does  the  advocate 
of  Peace  impair  the  just  authority  and  strength  of  civil  govern- 
ment? With  this,  the  prominent  exception,  made  because  it  is 
matter  of  conscience,  he  is  ready  to  act  his  part  in  the  administra- 
tion of  political  or  civil  affairs.  There  is  no  office  which  he  is  not 
bound  to  fill,  provided  the  taking  of  life  be  not  one  of  its  dutys, 
or  one  of  the  means  to  be  employd.  He  does,  indeed,  utterly 
deny  the  right  to  take  life,  whether  in  case  of  war,  or  in  the  case 
of  resisting,  arresting,  or  executing  a  felon.  But  then  he  is  con- 
sistent; for  he  equaly  denys  that  any  tyrany  or  oppression  on  the 
part  of  rulers,  can  justify  a  resort  to  conspiracy,  rebellion,  or  in- 
surrection. The  principle  is  the  same ;  for  he  denys  even  to  the 
oppressd  the  right  to  take  the  life  of  the  oppressor.  So  far  from 
weakening  government,  peace  principles  actualy  strengthen 
it;  and  the  true  objection,  if  there  be  any,  is  that  they  make  go- 
vernment too  strong  rather  than  too  weak.  But,  in  so  doing,  the 
advocate  of  Peace,  does  no  more  than  the  Savior,  and  his  apostles, 
and  the  primitiv  Christians  did,  they  took  things  as  they  found 
them :  and  instead  of  employing  force  to  remedy  the  evils  of  society 


160 

and  government,  and  to  expel  tyranicai  and  oppressiv  rulers,  they 
themselvs  submitted,  and  taught  the  same  duty  to  others.  Their 
example  ilustrates  the  true  standard  of  civil  obedience.  If  the 
ruler  require  me  to  do  or  to  forbear  what  my  conscience  tells  me 
the  Gospel  forbids  or  commands,  I  simply  refuse,  and  say  to  him 
in  the  language  of  the  apostles,  "We  ought  to  obey  God  rather 
than  man,"  If  he  require  me  to  worship  idols  or  to  slay  my  fel- 
low man,  I  refuse,  because  I  regard  both  as  forbidden.  But  if 
he  require  me  to  pay  taxes,  altho*  one  object  of  the  taxes  be  the 
support  of  idolatry,  or  the  waging  of  war,  I  comply,  simply  be- 
cause he  has  a  clear  right  to  levy  taxes,  and  the  responsibility  of 
applying  them  is  with  him,  not  with  me.  He  is  lawfuly  possessd 
of  the  power  on  the  principle  of  civil  obedience,  as  taught  us  in 
the  New  Testament;  taxes  are  among  the  usual  and  necessary  in- 
struments for  the  administration  of  government;  the  use  to  which 
he  shall  apply  them,  is  not  my  province,  but  his:  he  requires  no- 
thing unlawful  of  me,  and  therefore  I  comply.  Here  then  is  the 
distinction.  If  he  commands  what  is  unlawful,  as  a  means  for 
the  attainment  of  even  a  lawful  end,  I  refuse  obedience.  But  if 
he  commands  what  is  lawful,  intending  when  the  command  has 
been  performd  by  me,  to  employ  the  fruit  of  my  obedience  in  the 
accomplishment  of  unlawful  purposes  in  which  I  hav  no  hand, 
I  obey,  because  he  requires  of  me  only  what  is  rightful.  I  hav 
nothing  to  do  with  his  motiv  or  his  object.  I  would  ilustrate  this 
by  the  case  of  a  debt.  I  am  indebted  to  another.  He  demands 
payment.  I  am  not  at  liberty  to  refuse,  because  I  happen  to 
know,  or  hav  reason  to  believ  that  he  will  employ  the  money, 
when  paid,  for  unlawful  or  immoral  purposes.  This  follows  from 
the  principle  already  stated.  My  duty  is  very  clear,  to  pay  the 
debt:  the  use  of  the  money,  when  paid,  is  at  once  his  right  and 
responsibility.  This  may  be  aptly  ilustrated  by  a  modification  of 
the  ease  stated.  I  am  indebted  to  another;  but  the  debt  is  not 
due.  He  calls  for  payment,  not  having  a  right  to  do  so,  and  I 
happen  to  know,  that  his  reason  for  wishing  the  money  then,  is  to 
make  an  improper  use  of  it,  I  am  hound  to  refuse;  because  not 
being  bound  to  pay  then,  I  am  volunteering  to  grant  a  favor, 
knowing  that  it  will  be  abus'd.  On  the  same  principle  I  can  con- 
scientiously pay  taxes,  knowing,  that  among  other  objects,  the 
public  money  will  be  applyd  to  pay  judges  and  jurors  for  trying 
and  condemning  criminals  to  capital  punishment;  to  pay  the  salary 
of  the  president  of  a  college^  who  teaches  that  public  prayer  is 


161 

unchristian,  and  the  clergy  a  set  of  imposters;  or  to  pay  the  ex- 
penses of  war.  This  seems  to  me  the  only  safe  and  wise  princi- 
ple, and  it  furnishes  a  suitable  criterion  for  civil  obedience.  We 
may  ilustrate  still  farther.  The  magistrate,  instead  of  a  general 
tax  law  divides  the  taxes,  and  lays  on  the  advocates  of  Peace  the 
war  tax.  They  cannot  conscientiously  pay  it;  because  they  ar 
thus  made  the  sole  and  direct  instrument  of  carrying-  on  the  war, 
and  without  their  compliance,  it  must  be  at  a  stand.  So,  in  like 
manner,  if  he  commands  the  friends  of  Peace  to  garrison  a  fort,  or 
man  a  vessel  of  war,  they  must  refuse  because  they  ar  required  to 
do  what  is  unchristian.  Again,  if  he  calls  out  the  citizens  to  labor  on 
public  works,  and  allots  the  building-  of  a  court-house  to  the  Friends 
of  Peace,  but  that  of  a  fortress  to  the  advocates  of  war,  those  may 
comply  as  conscientiously  as  these.  But  if  he  reverses  the  order, 
the  former  cannot  innocently  obey  him;  because  they  would  then 
be  the  direct  instruments  of  doing  unchristian  acts.  The  doctrin, 
then,  of  Christian  obedience  to  the  civil  magistrate,  seems  to  me  to 
rest  on  clear  and  immutable  principles.  The  will  of  God  is  a  su- 
preme law;  that  of  man  a  subordinate  system.  The  law  of  God  is 
personal  to  each  individual.  He  is  to  understand,  to  interpret,  to 
execute  it  for  himself.  The  opinion  of  all  the  rest  of  the  world 
can  avail  nothing  against  his  own  convictions  of  duty.  No  human 
power  can  then  lawfuly  compel  disobedience  to  that  conviction; 
nor  can  protect  him  against  the  consequences  of  disobedience. 
He  must  obey  God  first,  and  man  next;  God  supremely,  mansub- 
ordinately.  Whatever  law  of  society  commands  or  forbids  then, 
what  the  law  of  God  prohibits  or  enjoins,  must  be  disobeyed  at 
evry  hazard.  Obedience  is  due  to  the  civil  magistrate,  not  as  a 
duty  to  society,  but  as  a  duty  to  God.  God  only  can  then  lawfuly 
fix  the  land-marks  of  that  duty. 


NOTE  Y. 

And  I  would  reply,  that  it  was  repeald  by  the  sixth  command- 
ment. Thou  shalt  not  kill.  Each  is  a  universal  law:  and  they 
ar  therefore,  irreconcilable.  The  precept  to  Noah  was  given, 
when  neither  society  nor  government  existed.  If  therefore  it 
was  political,  as  well  as  individual  in  its  character,  it  could  only 
be  so,  because  the  public  man  may  lawfuly  do  what  is  permitted 
to  the  private  man.  The  sixth  commandment,  on  the  contrary, 
o2 


162 

Was  given  when  society  and  government  both  existed;  and  if  God 
had  not  afterwards,  in  the  Mosaic  institutions,  commanded  the 
punishment  of  death  in  many  cases,  who  can  doubt  that  the  Jew- 
ish rulers  never  could  hav  inflicted  the  punishment  of  death  con- 
sistently with  that  commandment  Assuredly  it  will  not  be  deny'd 
that  the  tables  of  the  law  bound  equaly  the  Jewish  ruler  and  the 
private  Israelite.  Now,  it  is  conceded,  that  the  Mosaic  code,  as 
a  political  and  civil  institution,  is  abolishd;  but  all  Christians 
admit,  that  the  tables  of  the  law  ar  unrepeald,  and  ar  a  part 
of  the  Christian  code  of  morals.  They  ar  unrepeald,  because 
they  bound  the  Jewish  ruler,  not  as  civil,  but  as  moral  laws. 
They  ar  a  part  of  the  Christian  scheme  •  because  they  ar  moral, 
not  political  institutions.  Hence,  when  the  rich  young"  man  in- 
quir'd  of  Jesus,  "  What  shall  1  do  to  inherit  eternal  life?"  the  an- 
swer was,  "Thouknowest  the  commandments."  Do  not  commit 
adultery,  Do  not  kill,  &c.  They  ar  then  a  part  of  the  Christian 
moral  code;  for  Christ  has  thus  republishd  and  sanctiond  the  ta- 
bles of  the  law.  "  Thou  shalt  not  kill,  is  then  as  much  a  pre- 
cept of  Christ  as  any  part  of  the  sermon  on  the  mount.  Now, 
what  text  of  the  New  Testament  has  republishd  and  sanctiond 
the  precept  given  to  Noah,  «  Whoso  sheddeth  man's  blood,  by 
man  shall  his  blood  be  shed."  So  far  from  adopting-  such  a  rule, 
how  could  it  hav  been  done  consistently  with  the  precepts 
11  Render  not  evil  for  evil;"  "  Overcome  evil  with  good;"  "  Love 
your  enemies;"  "Bless  them  that  curse  you;"  "Do  g-ood  to  them 
that  hate  you?"  The  Christian  command  is  then  universal, 
"Thou  shalt  not  kill:"  and  as  the  Christian  lawgiver  has  made 
no  exceptions,  man  cannot  lawfuly  make  one.  The  Christian 
ruler  is  then  bound  by  tills  moral  rule:  because  he  Avas  a  Chris- 
tian before  he  became  a  ruler;  just  as  the  Jewish  ruler  was 
bound  because  he  was  a  Jew  before  he  became  a  ruler.  Neither 
could  absolv  himself  from  the  obligation  to  obey  the  precept; 
because  in  becoming  a  ruler,  he  did  not  cease  to  be  a  Jew,  or  a 
Christian.  The  Jewish  ruler  could  only  depart  when  the  parti- 
cular precept  of  his  civil  code  dispensd  in  thai  case  with  the 
universal  precept  of  the  moral  code,  both  being  deriv'd  directly 
from  the  same  authority.  The  Christian  ruler  can  never  depart, 
because  his  code  has  no  exception.  I  hold  the  punishment  of 
death  to  be  therefore  a  clear  violation  of  Christian  morals, 


163 
NOTE  Z. 

An  attempt  is  sometimes  made  to  cast  a  reproach  on  the  cause 
of  peace,  and  on  the  principles  of  its  advocates,  as  tho'  it  im- 
press'd  a  slavish  submission  to  tyrany  and  oppression.  Those 
who  speak  thus,  identify  the  cause  of  peace  with  the  doctrin  of 
non-resistance,  as  taught  by  the  friends  of  despotism.  What,  we 
ar  askd,  would  you  submit  to  hav  your  dearest  rights  trampled 
upon,  and  not  resist?  Would  you  allow  yourself  to  be  depriv'd 
of  your  political,  and  civil,  and  religious  rights,  without  a  strug- 
gle ?  Would  you  sit  down,  like  a  coward,  and  suffer  yourself  to 
be  insolently  and  unjustly  disfranchis'd;  and  not  peril  life  itself 
to  punish  the  aggressor,  and  rescue  from  him  the  fruits  of  his  ty- 
rany? I  answer  calmly;  because  I  feel  no  concern  at  being  calld 
a  coward  by  the  world,  that  I  should  not  act  as  the  above  ques- 
tions suppose,  that  I  oitght  to  act.  If  it  be  askd,  what  then  would 
you  do,  my  reply  is  a  very  simple  one:  I  should  do  precisely 
what  I  believ  the  Apostles,  and  the  primitiv  Christians  would, 
and  nothing  more?  And  what  is  that?  They  would,  in  my  opin- 
ion, hav  done  precisely  what  the  world  would  style  an  act  of 
cowardice  and  baseness. — First.  They  would  hav  plac'd  their 
whole  trust,  calmly  and  undoubtingly,  in  God,  and  not  in  them 
selvs  or  in  their  fellow  men.  Second.  Prayer  to  God  for  their 
persecutors  and  oppressors  would  hav  been  their  first  petition, 
and  the  second  for  themselvs,  that  strength,  faith,  and  resigna- 
tion, love  to  their  enemys,  and  humility  of  spirit,  might  be  vouch- 
safe. Third.  They  would  hav  resolvd,  that  come  what  might, 
they  would  never  employ  armd  resistance,  that  they  would  never 
engage  in  rebellion  or  insurrection.  Fourth.  But  they  would 
equaly  resolv,  never  to  do  any  act  requir'd  of  them  by  their  op- 
pressor, which  conscience  told  them  he  had  not  a  right  to  require, 
and  they  could  not  conscientiously  do.  This  I  take  to  be  the 
doctrin  of  Christian  non-resistance.  The  world  may  call  it  cow- 
ardly and  mean;  but  that  shakes  not  the  Christian's  purpose. 
Names  are  things  with  the  world:  not  so  with  the  Christian.  Names 
are  things  with  him,  only  when  the  Bible  determins  them  to  be 
one  and  the  same.  The  question  with  him  never  can  be,  whether 
society  and  its  rulers  style  him  a  coward,  a  rebel,  a  traitor;  if  Ihe 
precepts  of  Jesus  teach  him,  that  to  be  such  in  the  estimate 
of  the  world,  is,  in  the  sight  of  God,  true  courage  and  true  fide- 
lity to  him.     Let  us  now  bring  this  question  of  non-resistance  to 


164 

the  best  practical  test,  the  experience  of  the  primitiv  ages  of  the 
Christian  church.  I  take  for  granted  that  no  one  can  doubt  the 
following  positions  of  principle  and  fact: — First.  The  Christians 
had  a  clear  right  to  the  enjoyment  of  all  the  privileges  and  advan- 
tages of  the  communitys  in  which  they  livd:  and  this  right  is 
equaly  sustaind  by  reason,  natural  justice,  and  religion.  Second. 
The  heathen  rulers  were  utterly  unjustifiable  in  depriving  the 
primitiv  Christians  of  those  privileges  and  advantages:  still  less 
had  they  a  right  to  persecute  and  destroy  them  for  being  Chris- 
tians. Third.  The  heathen  rulers  acted  the  part  of  despots  and 
oppressors  to  the  primitiv  Christians.  Fourth.  The  primitiv 
Christians  were  subjected  for  their  faithfulness,  most  wantonly, 
unjustly,  and  cruely,  to  sufferings  scarcely  surpassed  by  those 
predicted  to  the  Jews,  in  case  of  their  disobedience.  If  ever  men 
had  a  right  to  rebel  and  to  employ  an  armd  resistance,  it  was  these 
primitiv  disciples.  Their  enemys  were  equaly  the  enemys  of 
God  himself.  The  rights  invaded  were  not  the  creatures  of  so- 
ciety and  protected  by  human  constitutions;  but  were  the  gift  of 
God,  and  secured  by  the  New  Testament,  the  great  charter  of 
Christian  rights.  Yet  they  did  not  rebel,  they  did  not  resort  to 
an  armd  resistance.  And  why  not?  Simply,  because  they  knew 
that  such  means  were  inconsistent  with  the  Christian  character. 
Were  they  restraind  by  fear?  No  one  can  allege  that.  Were  they 
restraind  by  calculations  of  the  probabilitys  of  success  and  failure  ? 
None  can  suspect  that.  Were  they  restraind  by  personal  and  self- 
ish considerations?  Who  is  so  ignorant  or  so  reckless  of  truth,  as 
to  bring  such  an  accusation  against  men,  who  counted  life,  liberty, 
property,  domestic  enjoyments  and  social  intercourse,  as  the 
very  dust  under  their  feet?  The  primitiv  Christians  did  not  then 
resist  their  oppressors  by  rebellion  and  with  the  sword,  simply 
because  they  knew  these  to  be  unchristian  means.  Let  us 
assume  that  the  primitiv  Christians  believd  insurection  and  armd 
warfare  to  be  lawful  weapons  against  tyrany  and  injustice.  Why 
then  did  they  not  use  them?  Can  any  possible  motiv  be  assignd 
for  the  omission,  consistent  with  the  right  to  use  them  ?  I  answer 
fearlessly,  none.  If  they  had  believd  that  they  could,  conscien- 
tiously, arm  against  the  Heathen,  as  the  Protestants  did  against 
the  Catholics,  would  they  not  hav  gone  to  the  battel-field  with 
the  calm  and  undoubting  confidence  with  which  David  went  forth 
to  meet  Goliath  Will  any  one  venture  to  say,  that  the  trust  of 
the  Puritan  or  Hugonot  in  the  righteousness  of  his  cause,  and  in 


165 

the  approbation  of  Heaven,  could  hav  equald  that  of  the  pri~ 
mitiv  Christians.  These  would  hav  fought  against  paganism, 
which  was  to  be  utterly  destroyd  and  banishd  from  the  whole 
earth  by  Christians;  while  those  fought  against  an  acknowlegd 
Christian  church,  that  only  needed  reformation.  Again,  if  the 
primitiv  Christians  had  believd  military  warfare  lawful,  it  would 
hav  been  the  universal  sentiment  of  the  church.  Would  not 
that  church,  with  the  immense  number  of  devoted  followers 
evry  where  throughout  the  Roman  empire,  hav  been  vastly  an 
overmatch  for  the  Roman  armys  and  generals?  What  but  the 
spirit  of  liberty,  wild  and  licentious  as  it  was,  enabled  the  Greeks 
and  Romans,  and  the  Freneh  armys  of  the  revolution,  to  accom- 
plish such  prodigy s  under  such  disadvantages? — But  would  any 
Christian  compare  the  depth,  and  strength,  and  enthusiazm,  and 
durability  of  the  motivs,  that  would  hav  influenc'd  Christian  sol- 
diers in  the  supposed  case,  with  those  of  the  ancient  Heathen 
and  the  French  republicans?  We  know  with  absolute  cer- 
tainty, there  is  no  comparison  in  any  of  the  elements  that  go  to 
make  up  the  consummate  officer  and  the  invincible  soldier.  If 
the  primitiv  church  had  regarded  military  warfare  as  lawful,  it 
would  hav  been  employd:  and  the  Roman  empire  would  hav 
been  conquerd  by  Christian  armys  long  before  the  northern  Bar- 
barians came  forth  to  destroy  it.  Nor  must  we  forget,  that  the 
primitiv  church  would  hav  been  impelld  to  this  course,  not  only 
by  the  convictions  that  they  fought  for  their  dearest  rights  against 
tyrants  and  oppressors,  but  that  they  fought  in  the  cause  of  God 
against  His  enemys,  and  that  victory  would  hav  enabled  them,  by 
the  possession  of  the  whole  political  power  of  the  empire,  to 
spread  the  true  religion  evry  where,  with  unexampled  rapidity 
and  success.  Such  would  hav  been  human  calculation;  and  such 
were  the  calculations  of  Protestants  when  they  armd  against  Ca- 
tholics, of  the  Roundheads  when  they  wag'd  war  with  the  Cava- 
liers, and  of  the  Covenantors  of  Scotland;  but  the  primitiv 
Christians  believ'd  God  to  be  wiser  than  man.  They  would, 
therefore,  neither  defend  themselvs  with  arms,  nor  employ  the 
sword  of  rebellion  and  conquest,  simply  because  they  knew  both 
to  be  unlawful  in  Christians.  It  was  then  foolishness  to  belie v, 
and  they  acted  out  that  belief,  that  truth  is  propagated  faster  by 
the  destruction  of  its  friends  by  its  enemys,  than  by  the  destruction 
of  its  enemys  by  its  friends.  If  then  it  was  unlawful,  and  there- 
fore  inexpedient,  (as  Ecclesiastical  history  abundantly  testifys,)  for 


166 

the  primitiv  Christians  to  employ  armd  resistance  in  their  case,  it 
never  can  be  lawful,  and  therefore  never  expedient,  to  employ 
it  in  any  other  case.  If  the  end  did  not  justify  such  means  with 
them,  what  other  end  ever  can? 

There  is  another  most  interesting"  view  of  this  subject.  All 
Christians  will  agree  that  the  Roman  Empire  was  to  be  destroyd, 
just  as  certainly,  as  the  nations  of  Canaan  were  to  be  rooted 
up  for  the  implanting  of  the  children  of  Israel.  That  this  de- 
struction was  to  form  a  most  conspicuous  scene  in  the  administra- 
tion of  God's  moral  government  of  the  world,  cannot  be  doubt- 
ed. The  prophecy  was  to  be  fulfilld;  "  all  they  that  take  the 
sword,  shall  perish  with  the  sword."  Why  were  not  Paul  and 
Peter  and  John,  and  all  the  apostles  commissiond  like  Moses  and 
Joshua,  and  sent  forth  sword  in  hand  to  conquer  pagan  commu- 
nitys,  and  make  them  Christian;  to  overturn  heathen  Govern- 
ments and  establish  Christian  rulers  evry  where?  Rome  was  to 
perish  by  the  sword,  but  not  by  Christian  hands.  The  chosen 
people  of  God,  were  not  such,  as  of  old,  to  fight  his  battels,  and 
vindicate  by  the  sword,  their  rights  to  possess  and  rule  the  earth. 
The  Heathen  were  calld  forth  from  the  forests  of  the  north,  to 
slaughter,  and  plunder,  and  utterly  destroy  the  tyrants  and  op- 
pressors, the  robbers  and  murderers  of  the  whole  earth.  War 
was  a  lawful  instrument  to  the  Jew,  because  it  was  expressly  com- 
manded. It  was  lawful  to  the  heathen;  because  to  him  the  pre- 
cept stood  unrepeald,  "whoso  sheddeth  man's  blood  by  man 
shall  his  blood  be  shed."  But  to  the  Christian  war  must  ever  be 
an  unlawful  instrument;  because  to  him  the  universal  moral  pre- 
cept, "thou  shalt  not  kill,"  never  has  been  repeald.  War  is 
peculiarly,  emphaticaly,  God's  instrument,  not  man's. 

Let  us  not  forget  in  this  connexion,  that  the  Roman  empire 
was  thus  destroyd,  after  it  had  become  Christian.  I  speak  of  it  as 
Christian,  in  the  common  acceptation  of  the  word.  It  was  in 
truth  still  a  heathen  empire,  because  it  was  still  adfninisterd  on  hea- 
then principles.  Instead  of  the  sermon  on  the  mount,  and  a  host 
of  missionarys  with  the  law  of  love,  humility,  forbearance,  for- 
givness,  sent  forth  to  Christianize  and  civilize  the  heathen,  Mars 
was  still  the  god  of  the  Roman  empire:  and  the  same  system  of 
robbery  and  murder,  as  far  as  practicable,  still  prevaild.  That 
public  law  of  the  empire,  was  the  antichristian  law,  an  eye  for  an 
eye,  and  a  tooth  for  a  tooth.  The  sword  was  the  great  instru- 
ment to  accomplish  all  public  ends:  and  armys  were  the  only 


167 

safeguard  relyd  on  by  Christian  rulers.  As  a  Public  then,  and  as 
a  Government,  the  Roman  empire  was  still  Pagan.  It  was  meet 
then  that  it  should  perish  by  heathen  hands:  and  the  destroying" 
angel  himself,  seems  as  it  were,  to  hav  op  end  thro*  the  forests 
of  Germany  a  highway  of  nations  for  the  Scourge  of  God,  to 
tread  it  down  and  break  it  in  pieces.  It  was  meet  that  it  should 
thus  perish?  for  Christian  rulers  had  become  the  worshipers  of 
Mars,  and  relyd  on  the  sword,  not  on  faith  and  love.  It  was 
meet  that  the  most  awful  and  terrible  fulfilment  of  the  prophecy, 
which  the  world  had  ever  seen,  should  now  be  given;  because 
Christians  had  actualy  subdued  the  Roman  empire  without  the 
sword;  but  relyd  only  on  the  sword  to  defend  it. 


NOTE  A  A. 

I  am  surprisd  that  Dymond  has  not  notic'd  here  the  authentic 
history  of  the  conduct  of  the  Quakers  in  Ireland,  during  the  Re- 
bellion of  1798,  by  Thomas  Hancock,  a  physician  of  Liverpool. 
It  is  a  most  striking  and  affecting  testimony  to  the  truth,  power 
and  beauty  of  peace  principles.  The  ages  of  martyrdom  exhibit 
nothing  superior  to  this  little  volume,  as  a  record  of  the  trial  and 
triumph  of  faith,  humility  and  love.  What  majesty,  simplicity 
and  purity  in  this  practical  commentary  on  the  sermon  on  the 
mount!  What  a  contrast  to  armys  of  soldiers,  with  that  sermon 
in  their  knapsacks,  led  by  officers,  servants  of  the  Prince  of 
Peace,  and  encourag'd  by  the  prayers  and  preaching  of  Christian 
ministers,  as  military  chaplains!  Oh!  what  a  contrast  is  this  for 
Jesus  and  the  belovd  disciple,  and  the  spirits  of  the  just  to  be- 
hold! When  shall  the  Christian  Ministry  as  teachers  of  Christian 
youths,  be  willing  to  substitute  such  models  of  Christian  charac- 
ter as  Hancock  on  Peace,  for  such  models  of  heathen  character, 
as  Caesar's  Commentarys  and  the  Life  of  Agricola?  When  shall 
they  cease  to  teach,  that  "the  moral efect  of  Caesar's  Commentaries 
cannot  be  unfavorable,-"  that  "  the  great  Epics  of  Homer  and  Vir- 
gil address  themselvs  to  the  susceptibilitys  of  taste,  and  not  to  the 
moral  sense,-"  and  that  "  it  would  be  difficult  to  find  in  modern 
times  a  specimen  of  biography  equaly  instructiv  with  the  Life  of 
Agricola?"  Now,  it  is  impossible  to  deny  on  Christian  princi- 
ples, that  Csesar  and  Agricola  were  neither  more  nor  less  than 


168 

robbers  and  murderers  by  wholesale.  Still  less  can  we  doubt,  that 
the  real  morals  of  Homer  ar  not  to  be  found  in  the  speculations  of 
the  critic  and  philosopher;  but,  in  the  practical  commentary  of 
Alexander  of  Macedon,  and  in  the  sentiment  of  Cleomenes.  "Ho- 
mer is  the  poet  of  Spartans,  because  he  sings  of  war,-  Hesiod  of 
the  Helots  (i.  e.  of  slaves)  because  agriculture  is  his  theme." 
Did  Alexander  and  Cleomenes  admire  the  Iliad,  as  a  work  of 
taste  because  it  was  fitted  to  make  critics,  poets  and  fine  writers  ? 
Did  they  not  acknowledge  and  glory  in  its  transcendent  influence 
over  the  moral  sense, — transforming-  the  coward  into  the  warrior, 
the  slave  into  the  hero?  Would  the  Macedonian  have  recomend- 
ed  Hesiod  to  his  invading  army;  or  the  Spartan  have  sufferd  the 
minstrel  to  chant  the  Iliad  among  the  Helots?  The  libations  of 
Alexander  at  the  tombs  of  the  heroes  of  the  Iliad;  the  crown 
placed  on  the  pillar  of  Achilles;  the  enshrmement  of  the  Iliad  in 
that  precious  casket  of  Darius;  and  his  sentiment,  that  Achilles 
was  eminently  fortunate  in  such  a  bard  as  Homer,  prove  the  influ- 
ence of  the  poet  over  the  moral  sense,  with  an  eloquence  and  force 
of  argument,  that  cannot  be  gainsay d,  by  the  speculativ  opinions 
of  all  the  critics  and  moral  philosophers  of  Christendom.  The 
influence  of  Homer  is  far  better  comprehended  and  express'd 
by  a  writer  of  the  last  century.  "Immortal  bard!  Thou  alone 
didst  sound  the  charge  at  Thermopylae !  Thou  alone  didst  con- 
quer at  Marathon  and  Salamis!  That  a  paltry  corner  of  Europe 
should  stand  first  in  the  rolls  of  fame  is  solely  owing  to  thy  divine 
genius." 

"  Like  quicksilver,  the  rhetoric  they  display, 
Shines  as  it  runs;  but  grasp'd  at,  slips  away.''" 


NOTE  B  B. 

We  are  very  little  sensible,  even  in  this  country,  of  the  prodi- 
gious amount  of  money,  drawn  from  the  people  and  expended  in 
war.  By  a  report  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  it  appears, 
that  the  amount  expended  on  the  military  establishment,  in- 
cluding fortifications,  up  to  31st  of  Debember,  1831,  was 
($185,000,000)  one  hundred  and  eighty-five  millions  of  dollars, 
and  on  the  naval  establishment  (108,000,000)  one  hundred  and 


169 

eight  millions  5  making-  an  aggregate  of  ($293,000,000)  two  hun- 
dred and  ninety-three  millions  of  dollars.  To  this  amount,  of 
itself  sufficiently  large,  to  show  what  an  insatiate  tax-gatherer 
war  is,  we  must  add  (#21,750,000)  twenty-one  millions  seven 
hundred  and  fifty  thousand  dollars  and  upwards,  paid  in  revolu- 
tionary and  other  pensions?  making  in  the  whole  the  gigantic 
aggregate  of  ($314,850,000)  three  hundred  and  fourteen  millions 
eight  hundred  and  fifty  thousand  dollars. 

We  boast  of  the  economy  of  our  government,  compar'd  to 
those  of  the  old  world.  But  the  peace  cause  proposes  a  re- 
trenchment which  far  exceeds  any  system  of  economy  ever  yet 
imagind,  much  less  attempted.  The  money  spent  upon  war .  in 
our  country,  if  employ'd  to  the  advancement  of  the  highest  inter- 
ests of  the  people,  their  religious,  moral  and  intelectual  improve- 
ment, would  hav  made  us  indeed,  thro'  all  our  borders,  a  free, 
educated,  peaceful,  Christian  people.  These  hundreds  of  mil- 
lions, thus  expended  in  murder  and  robbery,  in  the  promotion  of 
false  honor  and  the  acquisition  of  false  glory,  would  hav  coverd 
our  land  with  thousands  upon  thousands  of  schools,  academys  and 
colleges!  Then  should  we  hav  presented  a  far  more  glorious 
and  enviable  spectacle  than  that  which  is  now  our  boast,  a  peo- 
ple self-govemd  and  understanding  their  rights,-  for  we  should 
hav  been  a  people  governd  of  God,  and  understanding  our 
dutys. 

I  may  mention  as  one  of  the  modes  in  which  money  is  spent  in 
war,  the  distribution  of  prize  money,  which  is  certainly  so  much 
los  to  the  enemy  at  all  events.  And  in  the  course  of  the  many 
wars  wag'd  by  any  given  nation,  the  gains  and  losses"  would  be 
pretty  well  equalized;  so  that  the  prize  money  is  actualy  a  tax  on 
the  nation,  or  rather  a  most  unjust  and  unequal  exaction  from  the 
very  small number  in  comparison  of  the  whole,  whose  losses  of 
property  constitute  prize  money.  Some  idea  may  be  formd  on 
this  subject  from  the  distribution  of  East  India  prize  money, 
lately  made  in  England,  in  which  the  commander  in  chief  receivd 
£30,987  6s  Id,  nearly  $130,000— and  each  soldier  only  13s.  8Jd. 
less  than  three  dollars. 


170 


NOTE  C  C. 

How  admirable  and  appropriate  is  the  following-  passage  from 
Cowper's  Task,  B.  4.  Whilst  even  Christian  Ministers  are  so  la- 
vish in  their  prais  of  Horace,  Juvenal  and  Persius,  as  moral  wri- 
ters, is  it  not  strange,  that  they  should  hav  so  entirely  overlookd 
the  great  merits  of  Cowper's  moral  writings?  In  point  of  sub- 
stantial worth,  they  ar  much  more  valuable  than  the  writings  of 
the  Roman  satirists;  not  only  because  they  ar  the  compositions 
of  a  Christian  moralist,  but  because  they  hav  a  more  imediate 
and  eficient  application  to  our  own  institutions,  manners  and  cus- 
toms. I  would  rather  be  the  author  of  the  Task  of  Cowper, 
than  of  all  the  boasted  Satires  of  Horace,  Juvenal  and  Persius. 
The  day  must  yet  come,  when  Pagan  authors  shall  be  cast  out 
of  the  school-room  of  Christian  youth,  and  Christian  writers 
shall  take  their  place. 

*Tis  universal  soldiership  has  stabb'd 

The  heart  of  merit  in  the  meaner  class. 

Arms,  through  the  vanity  and  brainless  rage 

Of  those  that  bear  them,  in  whatever  cause, 

Seem  most  at  variance  with  all  moral  good, 

And  incompatible  with  serious  thought . 

The  clown,  the  child  of  nature,  without  guile, 

Blest  with  an  infant's  ignorance  of  all 

But  his  own  simple  pleasures;  now  and  then 

A  wrestling  match,  a  foot-race,  or  a  fair; 

Is  balloted,  and  trembles  at  the  news: 

Sheepish  he  doffs  his  hat,  and  mumbling  swe  ars 

A  bible  oath  to  be  whatever  they  please, 

To  do  he  knows  not  what.     The  task  perform  5d, 

That  instant  he  becomes  the  sergeant's  care,  - 

His  pupil,  and  his  torment,  and  his  j  est. 

His  awkward  gait,  his  introverted  toes, 

Bent  knees,  round  shoulders,  and  dejected  looks, 

Procure  him  many  a  curse.     By  slow  degrees, 

Unapt  to  learn,  and  formd  of  stubborn  stuff, 

He  yet  by  slow  degrees  puts  off  himself, 

Grows  conscious  of  a  change,  and  likes  it  well: 

He  stands  erect;  his  slouch  becomes  a  walk; 

He  steps  right  onward,  martial  in  his  air, 


171 

His  form  and  movement,  is  as  smart  above 
As  meal  and  larded  locks  can  make  him,  wears 
His  hat,  or  his  plum'd  helmet,  with  a  grace? 
And,  his  three  years  of  heroship  expired, 
Returns  indignant  to  the  slighted  plough. 
He  hates  the  field,  in  which  no  fife  or  drum 
Attends  him:  drives  his  cattle  to  a  march, 
And  sighs  for  the  smart  comrades  he  has  left. 
'Twere  well  if  his  exterior  change  were  all — 
But  with  his  clumsy  port  the  wretch  has  lost 
His  ignorance  and  harmless  manners  too, 
To  swear,  to  game,  to  drink;  to  show  at  home 
By  lewdness,  idleness,  and  Sabbath  breach, 
The  great  proficiency  he  made  abroad; 
T*  astonish  and  to  grieve  his  gazing  friends; 
To  break  some  maiden's  and  his  mother's  heart; 
To  be  a  pest  where  he  was  useful  once; 
Are  his  sole  aim,  and  all  his  glory  now. 


NOTE  DD. 

That  dueling  is  a  consequence  of  the  military  system,  cannot  be 
doubted.  Without  war,  we  should  hav  no  laws  of  honor;  no 
honorable  mode  of  adjusting  disputes  ;  no  «*  insults  and  injurys, 
that  can  be  wash'd  out  only  in  the  blood  of  the  offender."  With- 
out war  we  should  hear  nothing  of  that  sensitiv  honor,  which 
"  feels  a  stain  like  a  wound;  nothing  of  that  pure  and  lofty  chiv- 
alry," which  sets  at  defiance  the  laws  both  of  God  and  man;  no- 
thing of  that  standard  of  morals,  which  justifys  the  father,  hus- 
band, son,  and  patriot,  in  placing  his  life  at  the  disposal  of  the 
gambler,  and  man  of  fashion,  of  the  frivolous  and  worthless;  no- 
thing of  that  code  of  duty  which  justifys  murder  and  suicide; 
nothing  of  that  courage,  which  enters  silently  and  respectfuly  into 
the  courts  of  human  justice;  but  rushes  blood-staind  and  tumultu- 
ously  to  the  bar  of  the  Eternal  Judge  of  the  living  and  the  dead. 
If  then  the  system  of  fals  and  sanguinary  honor,  be  maintaind 
by  the  war  system,  and  would  perish  without  it,  shall  we  not  as- 
sign the  existence  of  dueling  as  a  strong  argument  against  war ? 
The  war  system  is  in  truth  the  dueling  system  of  nations,  found- 
ed on  similar  principles,  sustaind  by  similar  arguments,  appealing 


172 

to  the  same  motivs,  leading  to  like  results,  and  employing  the 
same  instruments  of  murder  and  suicide.  The  law  of  honor  is 
the  law  of  supreme  obligation  to  each.  Pride  is  the  exhaustless 
fountain  of  the  crimes  of  both  systems. 

"Tho'  various  foes  against  the  truth  combine, 
Pride  above  all  opposes  her  design: 
Pride,  of  a  growth  superior  to  the  rest, 
The  subtlest  serpent  with  the  loftiest  crest, 
Swells  at  the  thought  and  kindling  into  rage, 
Would  hiss  the  cherub  Mercy  from  the  stage." 

Compels  Truth. 

What  a  contrast  between  the  pride  of  the  duelist  and  warrior, 
and  the  humility  of  the  Christian!  "Blessed  are  the  poor  in 
spirit,*'  is,  to  adopt  the  sentiment  of  a  venerable  clergyman, 
" the  first  thought  of  the  first  sermon,  of  the  first  preacher  the  world 
ever  saw  !  Could  the  duelist  or  the  warrior  take  this  as  his  motto  ? 
What  a  text  for  the  chaplain  to  a  regiment  or  a  frigate !  What  a 
text  for  the  day  before  a  battel?  or  the  day  after,  at  the  burial  of 
thousands  of  the  slain;  or  in  the  chapel  of  a  hospital  for  the 
maimd  and  mangled!  If  humility  he  as  I  do  behev  it,  the  very 
best  virtue  of  practical  religion,  then  the  law  of  honor  "and  the 
law  of  war"  are  equaly  and  irreconcilably  among  the  deadliest 
enemys  of  the  meek  and  lowly  Jesus! 

I  cannot  forbear  from  inserting  here  the  commission  of  a  chap- 
lain to  a  regiment,  as  a  solemn  subject  of  meditation  for  the 
Christian  clergy. 

The  State  of  South  Carolina: 

TO  THE  B.EV. ,   D.D. 

We,  reposing  special  truth  and  confidence  in  your  courage  and 
good  conduct,  and  in  your  fidelity  and  attachment  to  the  United 
States  of  America,  have  commissioned  and  appointed  you,  and 

by  these  presents  do  commission  and  appoint  you  the  said  

,  chaplain  of  the regiment  of  Militia,  in .     And 

you  are  to  follow  and  observe  all  such  orders  and  instructions 
you  shall  from  time  to  time  receive  from  the  Governor,  the  com- 
mander in  chief  for  the  time  being,  or  any  of  your  superior  offi- 
cers, according  to  the  rules  and  discipline  of  war,  pursuant  to  the 
laws  of  this  State  and  of  the  United  States;  and  all  inferior  offi- 


173 

cers  and  others  belonging  to  the  said  regiment,  are  hereby  re- 
quir'd  and  commanded  to  obey  you  as  their  chaplain. 

What  a  document  for  the  messenger  of  peace,  and  love,  and 
humility!  What  a  title  to  forgivness  and  to  the  joys  of  heaven! 
What  a  commentary  on  the  petition  "-thy  kingdom  come?"  and 
on  the  prophecy,  "all  they  that  take  the  sword  shall  perish  by 
the  sword."  What  a  contrast  to  the  commission  of  the  Savior, 
"  Go  ye  therefore  and  teach  all  nations,  baptizing  them,  &c; 
teaching  them  to  observe  all  things  whatsoever  I  have  command- 
ed you." 


NOTE  E  E. 

The  text  suggests  a  distinction  which  I  hav  never  seen  no- 
tic'd;  but  which  recomends  itself  to  good  sense,  justice  and  hu- 
manity, and  still  more  to  religion.  I  refer  to  the  difference 
between  the  citizens  of  popular  governments,  and  the  subjects  of 
despotisms.  In  the  Jirst  case,  the  act  of  the  ruler  may  be  well  re- 
garded as  the  act  of  the  people  themselvs;  for  he  is  appointed 
by,  responsible  to,  and  punishable  by  them.  If  it  be  right  then  to 
punish  on  Christian  principles,  common  sense  and  justice  approve 
the  punishment  of  citizens,  who  ar  their  own  masters,  for  the 
misconduct  of  rulers,  who  ar  their  servants  ?  But  on  what 
equitable  and  rational  principle  can  we  justify  the  revers  of  the 
rule,  when  we  punish  the  innocent  for  the  guilty,  viz.  subjects  for 
the  folly  and  wickedness  of  sovereigns.  Whatever  we  might  say  of 
the  army  of  a  despot,  could  we  but  regard  the  mass  of  his  subjects  at 
home,  as  not  only  innocent,  but  as  even  sufferers  themselvs  by 
his  deeds  of  violence  and  injustice  to  us?  By  what  rule  then  of 
reason  or  equity,  could  we  justify  ourselvs  in  butchering  them 
by  thousands,  and  destroying  their  cottages  and  fields,  to  punish 
the  insolence  or  injurys  of  their  monarchs?  Yet  this  has  been  the 
character  of  almost  all  the  wars  that  hav  ever  existed.  In  very 
few  instances  hav  the  people  actualy  had  any  thing  to  do  with 
war,  except  as  themselvs  the  victims  of  cruelty  and  oppression. 
Justice  and  good  sense  equaly  forbid  our  regarding  the  wars, 
wag'd  by  arbitrary  governments,  whether  monarchys  or  aristo- 
p2 


174 

cracys,  as  national  sins  in  any  proper  meaning  of  the  word.  It  is 
only  in  the  Representativ  Republic  of  these  United  States,  that  war 
can  be  justly  and  truly  regarded  as  a  national  sin.  In  no  other 
instance  whatever,  since  the  beginning  of  time,  could  war  be  re- 
garded as  the  deliberate  appropriate  act  of  the  people.  But  with  us 
it  is  such.  The  will  of  the  people  can  declare  war,  can  continu 
it,  can  support  it,  can  stop  it  at  pleasure.  The  people  at  labge 
ab  the  guilty.  For  the  first  time  in  the  history  of  man,  we 
exhibit  the  awful,  affecting  spectacle  of  a  nation  arraignd  at  the 
bar  of  reason  and  justice,  of  natural  andreveald  religion,  and  con- 
victed of  thousands  of  acts  of  suicide  and  murder,  and  of  hundreds 
of  thousands  of  deeds  of  violence,  fraud,  cruelty  and  oppression. 
How  solemn  and  responsible  is  then  the  character  of  the  Ameri- 
can Government,  in  the  eys  of  all  reflecting  men,  and  especialy 
of  Christians!  Let  us  tremble,  lest  our  proud  distinction,  that 
we  are  the  only  self-governd  people  the  world  has  ever  seen, 
be  not  our  deepest  shame  and  guilt. 


NOTE  F  F. 

This  principle,  that  the  command  of  a  divine  lawgiver  never 
can  be  superseded  by  that  of  a  human  legislator,  is  most  amply  ilus- 
trated  by  the  very  familiar  cases  that  occur  in  the  administration 
of  justice  in  our  own  country.  Thus  the  by-law  of  a  corporation, 
which  violates  an  act  of  assembly,  is  admitted  universaly  to  be  no 
law.  vSo  also,  an  act  of  assembly,  which  interferes  in  a  case  of 
concurrent  jurisdiction,  with  an  act  of  congress,  must  yield  to  it. 
If  any  provision  of  a  State  Constitution  infringes  the  Constitution 
of  the  Union,  the  paramount  authority  of  the  latter  is  acknowleg'd 
and  the  former  givs  way.  All  this  proceeds  on  the  principle, 
that  the  inferior  cannot  lawfuly  supersede  the  commands  of  the 
superior.  But  is  not  the  divine  legislator  superior  to  any  hu- 
man lawgiver  ?  Now,  all  human  government,  is  according  to  the 
scriptures,  ordaind  of  God,  and  civil  obedience  is  declar'd  to  be 
a  religious,  as  well  as  a  political  duty.  The  power  of  rulers  is 
represented  as  vested  in  them  by  Godr  and  submission  is  requir'd 
for  conscience'  sake,  that  is  as  a  duty  to  God,  not  a  duty  to"  man, 
When,  therefore,  the  ruler  requires  of  the  citizen  what  God  has 
forbidden,  it  is  plainly  the  case  of  an  inferior  jurisdiction,  re- 


175 

quiring*  disobedience  to  the  commands  of  a  superior  power,  to 
which  obedience  is  due,  not  only  from  the  individual,  but  from 
itself  It  is  the  case  of  one,  who  exercises  a  delegated  authority, 
employing-  it  to  compel  disobedience  to  the  paramount  authority 
of  that  very  power,  which  gave  him  being. 

It  ought  to  be  remarkd,  that  it  is  quite  imaterial  to  this  argu- 
ment, whether  we  refer  human  government  and  rulers  to  the 
divine  will,  or  not.  In  either  view,  the  divine  command  is  of 
supreme  authority.  If  the  human  legislator  derives  his  power 
from  God,  then  beyond  all  doubt  he  can  ordain  nothing  contrary 
to  what  God  has  ordaind.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  he  does  not  de- 
rive his  power  from  God,  it  is  equaly  clear,  that  he  cannot  sus- 
pend or  repeal  the  command  of  God?  because  he  cannot  receiv 
his  authority  from  any  being  superior  to  God.  He  must  then  re- 
ceiv it  from  an  inferior  source;  and  which,  being  therefore  beyond 
all  doubt  subject  to  the  will  of  God,  cannot  exempt  him  from  the 
obligation  to  obey  that  very  law,  which  he  attempts  to  compel 
his  fellow  subjects  to  violate, 


ADDRESS 


TRUTH,  DIGNITY,  POWER  AND  BEAUTY 


PRINCIPLES  OF  PEACE, 


AND    ON   THE 


UNCHRISTIAN  CHARACTER  AND  INFLUENCE 


mux  w&  the  muwiov. 


DELIVERD  IN  THE  CENTER  CHURCH  AT  NEW-HATEN,  DURING  THE 
SESSION  OF  THE  LEGISLATURE  OF  CONNECTICUT,  AT  THE  REQUEST 
OF  THE  CONNECTICUT  PEACE  SOCIETY,   ON  SUNDAY  EVENING, 


MAY  6,  1832. 


BY  THOMAS  S.   GRIMKE, 

OF  CHARLESTON,  SOUTH  CAROLINA. 


"  For  not  on  wild  adventure  had  I  rushd 
"  With  giddy  speed,  in  some  delirious  fit 
"  Of  fancy,  but  in  many  a  tranquil  hour, 
"  Weighed  well  the  attempt,  till  hope  matured  to  faith." 

Madoc, 


EXTRACT  FROM  THE  RECORDS  OF  THE    CONNECTICUT  PEA.CE 
SOCIETY. 

"  Vbtedy  That  the  Board  of  Trustees  [highly  appreciate  the 
merits  of  Mr.  Gmmke's  excellent  Address,  and  most  cordially 
present  him  their  thanks  for  the  same." 

H.  Grew,  Secretary. 


ADDRESS. 


War  is  the  law  of  violence,  Peace  the  law  of  lov.  That 
law  of  violence  prevaild  without  mitigation,  from  the  murder 
of  Abel  to  the  advent  of  the  Prince  of  Peace.  During  all 
that  period  of  forty  centurys,  war  appeard  to  be  the  great  end 
of  all  the  institutions  of  society.  Governments  seemd  to  be 
successfuly  organiz'd,  only  when  strong  for  the  destruction 
of  others.  Rulers  appeard  to  be  fortunate  in  their  adminis- 
tration, and  ilustrious  in  their  achievments,  only  when 
marches  and  battel-fields,  burning  citys  and  shatterd  navys 
were  the  trophys  of  their  renown.  The  warrior  was  the 
great  man  of  those  ages,  for  his  art  presented  the  chief  means 
of  aggrandizement,  with  nations  and  individuals,  at  home  and 
abroad.  Peace,  the  natural  state  of  man,  whether  he  con- 
sults his  dutys,  his  interests,  or  his  happiness,  was  regarded 
as  worthy  only  of  the  vulgar,  ignorant  multitude:  and  as  the 
natural  state,  not  of the  free,  but  of  the  slave.  The  spirit  of 
all  those  ages  was  embody  d  in  the  sentiment  of  Cleomenes : 
Homer  is  the  poet  of  the  Spartans,  because  he  sings  of  war, 
Hesiod  of  the  Helots,  because  agriculture   is  his  theme.* 

*  The  sentiment  of  Cleomenes  seems  to  be  the  prevailing  sen- 
timent that  breaths  through  the  education  of  Christian  youth. 
War,  in  some  form  or  other  is  forever  present.     History,  bio- 


180 

War,  the  unnatural  state  of  man,  if  he  respects  his  obliga- 
tions, welfare,  and  improvement,  was  considerd  as  the  only 
natural  state  of  government  in  all  its  forms  of  despotism, 

graphy,  poetry,  in  all  our  seminarys,  ar  the  tributes  of  genius 
and  taste  to  the  character  and  achievments  of  the  pagan  war- 
rior. "Why  should  the  children  of  a  Christian  people,  be  forever 
under  the  influence  of  men,  so  entirely  the  revers  of  what  they 
ought  to  be?  Is  there  any  one,  who,  if  he  could,  would  send  his 
children  daily  to  the  camp  or  the  fort,  to  keep  the  company  of 
the  officer  and  the  soldier?  And  yet,  is  not  the  same  thing  ac- 
tualy  done  in  a  more  imposing  form  and  with  more  efect,  by  our 
schemes  of  education?  The  youthful  fancy  is  filld  with  images 
of  war,  with  pictures  of  campaigns,  and  sieges,  and  battels.  Let 
it  not  be  said  that  the  real  efect  of  all  this,  is  to  disgust  youth 
by  exhibiting  the  horrors  and  miserys  of  war,  and  to  produce 
aversion,  not  approbation.  This  might  be  true,  if  only  the  shock- 
ing and  revolting  picture  of  war  were  exhibited  ;  the  battel-field, 
the  day  after  battel ;  the  city  strown  with  its  dead,plunderd  and 
burnt ;  the  terrors  of  panic-struck  and  broken  squadrons ;  the  hun- 
ger, and  thirst,  and  dangers,  and  sufferings  of  retreating  armys ; 
the  tortures  and  loathsomness  of  the  hospital  and  prisonship.  But 
how  can  we  so  deceiv  ourselvs?  The  reality  we  know,  produces 
no  such  efect,  and  yet  we  vainly  imagin  that  it  may  flow  from  a 
inere  narrativ,  destitute  of  the  thrilling  interest  and  appalling 
horrors  of  personal  experience.  Let  it  not  be  likend  to  the  act 
of  the  Spartans,  in  exhibiting  to  their  children,  drunken  Helots. 
The  paralel  might  hold  if  only  the  miserys  and  horrors  of  war 
were  exhibited.  But  the  Spartans  knew  too  well  the  force  of 
temptation  to  venture  on  setting  before  their  youth,  the  graces 
and  fascinations  and  enjoyments  of  the  wreath  and  the  rosy  wine, 
of  thefestivsong^nd  the  boon  companion.  But  Christian  teachers, 
insensible  to  the  force  and  truth  of  the  example  set  by  semi-bar- 
barian pagans,  follow  the  practice  of  the  Egyptians,  who  plac'd 
a  skeleton  at  the  festal  board,  under  the  idle  hope,  that  it  would 
exercise  a  restraining  influence  over  the  company.  Charles  the 
5th  carryd  about  with  him  in  all  his  campaigns  a  French  trans- 
lation of  Thucydides :  and  Henry  the  4th,  and  Lewis  the 
14th  translated  Ceesar.   They  acted  consistently ;  while  Seleucus 


161 

oligarchy,  and  democracy.  Even  in  the  comparativly  free 
states  of  Greece  and  Italy,  amidst  their  hideous  compounds 
of  despotic  aristocracy  and  turbulent  licentious  democracy, 
War  was  the  master  passion  of  the  people,  the  master  spring 
of  government.  The  republicans  of  antiquity  appear  to  hav 
livd  in  vain,  unless  they  died  in  battel ;  and  all  the  vital  pow- 
ers of  their  government  were  so  entirely  military,  that  they 
perishd,  as  soon,  as  they  lost  the  capacity  to  make  war  suc- 
cessfuly.  Such  institutions  and  states  of  society,  present 
one  of  the  most  remarkable  proofs  of  the  folly  and  depravity 
of  man.  In  them  we  behold  the  singular  and  revolting  spec- 
tacle of  the  people  constructing  their  governments,  and  ad- 
ministering their  public  concerns  on  the  cruel,  unjust,  and 
ruinous  maxims  of  tyrants  and  conquerors.  With  War,  as 
the  prevailing  spirit  of  all  their  institutions,  the  republics  of 
antiquity  hav  demonstrated  how  uterly  unfit  the  people  ar 
to  govern  themselvs,  if  the  law  of  violence  be  the  funda- 
mental law  of  their  social  compact.  They  hav  demon- 
strated that  if  nations,  tho'  cougparativly  free  and  enlight- 
end,  liv  by  the  sword,  they  shall  perish  by  the  sword : 
That  the  law  of  violence  is  the  law  of  murder  to  others,  of 
suicide  to  ourselvs.* 

Nicator  (the  conqueror)  acted  inconsistently,  when  he  plac'd 
Hesiod  under  his  pillow.  Christian  seminarys  not  only  imitated 
the  inconsistency  of  Seleucus,  but  they  teach  practicaly  that  un- 
less a  youth  devotes  ten  years  of  his  life  to  the  translation  of  such 
books  as  Henry  and  Lewis  admir'd,  he  cannot  be  prepared  for 
Christian  duty  and  Christian  usefulness. 

*  The  great  objection  to  war  is  not  so  much  the  number  of 
lives  and  the  amount  of  property  which  it  destroys,  as  its  moral 
influence  on  nations  and  individuals.  It  creates  and  perpetuates 
national  jealousy,  fear,  hatred,  and  envy.  The  last  things  that 
it  teaches  ar  humility,  peace,  and  love,  forbearance,  and  for- 
givness.  It  is  continualy  suspending  the  intercourse  of  nations? 
and  preventing  them  from  exercising  a  mutual  influence  of  kind 

Q 


182 

We  might  hav  imagind,  if  history  had  not  attested  the  re- 
vers,  that  an  experiment  of  four  thousand  years  would  hav 
suffic'd  to  prove,  that  the  rational  and  valuable  ends  of  so- 

offices  and  useful  actions.  It  makes  the  destruction  or  crippling 
of  each  other  the  great  end  of  national  existence,  and  the  ruin  of 
a  powerful  people  becomes  the  jubilee  of  the  world.  If  it  sweeps 
away  the  poor,  yet  as  Antisthenes  said,  it  makes  more  than  it 
consumes.  The  same  is  equaly  true  of  the  vicious  and  the  cri- 
minal. It  arms  the  wicked  and  cruel,  the  ambitious  and  the  ar- 
TOgant  with  a  power  to  oppress  and  torment,  which  peace  could 
never  confer:  and,  indeed,  it  makes  those  who  would  be  the  de- 
light of  mankind,  a  curs  to  their  own  age,  and  to  many  an  age 
after  them.  It  exhibits  man,  according  to  the  opinion  of  Ana- 
charsis,  the  Scythian,  as  his  own  worst  enemy,  exemplifying 
forever  the  sentiment  of  Burns  : 

"  Man's  inhumanity  to  man 
Makes  countless  thousands  mourn." 

Nor  is  this  all.  It  makes  it  the  duty,  glory,  and  interest  of 
Christians,  yes,  of  Christians  !  to  slay  and  plunder  one  another. 
Those  who  had  met,  but  a  short  time  before  hostilitys  com- 
menc'd,  as  partakers  of  the  sacramental  bread  and  wine;  who  had 
united  in  the  same  truly  Christian  cause  of  the  Bible  and  Tract, 
of  the  Sunday  School  and  Missions,  ar  absolvd  by  war,  from 
these  highest  and  holyest  obligations  to  each  other.  The  merce- 
nary soldier  of  Switzerland,  and  the  freemason,  hav  privileges 
which  Christianity  confers  not.  The  Christian  warrior  would 
slay  his  adversary  without  mercy  or  remors,  if  his  only  plea 
was  that  he  was  a  brother  in  Christ;  but  if  he  gave  the  sign  of 
the  masonic  fraternity,  or  was  a  Swiss,  he  would  be  spar'd  by  his 
fellow-member  or  fellow-countryman.  The  folly  or  injustice  of 
a  king,  the  insolence  or  frauds  of  his  ministry,  the  violence  of  an 
officer,  or  the  misconduct  of  a  magistrate,  ar  held  not  only  to 
excuse,  but  to  justify  and  require  christians  to  murder  and  rob 
the  inocent,  and  to  visit  on  countless  familys  poverty  and  afflic- 
tion. War  arrogates  to  itself  the  prerogativ  of  the  Creator  only 
to  in  vol  v  the  inocent  multitude  in  the  punishment  of  the  guilty 


183 

ciety,  can  never  be  attaind,  by  constructing  its  institutions  in 
conformity  with  the  standard  of  war.  But  the  sword  and 
the  torch  had  been  eloquent  in  vain.  A  thousand  battel -fields, 
white  with  the  bones  of  brothers,  were  counted  as  idle  advo- 
cates in  the  cause  of  justice  and  humanity.  Ten  thousand 
citys,  abandond  to  the  cruelty  and  licentiousnes  of  the  sol- 
diery, and  burnt,  or  dismantled,  or  raz'd  to  the  ground, 
pleaded  in  vain  against  the  law  of  violence.  The  river,  the 
lake,  the  sea,  crimsond  with  the  blood  of  fellow-citizens,  and 
neighbors,  and  strangers,  had  lifted  up  their  voices  in  vain 
to  denounce  the  folly  and  wickedness  of  war.  The  shrieks 
and  agonys,  the  rage  and  hatred,  the  wounds  and  curses  of 
the  battel-field,  and  the  storm  and  the  sack,  had  scatterd  in 
vain  their  terrible  warnings  throughout  all  lands.  In  vain 
had  the  insolent  Lysander  destroyd  the  walls  and  burnt  the 
fleets  of  Athens,  to  the  music  of  her  own  female  flute  players. 
In  vain  had  Scipio,  amid  the  ruins  of  Carthage,  in  the  spirit 
of  a  gloomy  seer,  applyd  to  Rome  herself,  the  prophecy  of 
Agamemnon. 

few.  It  exhibits  the  extraordinary  spectacle  of  christians 
spending  years  in  studying  the  best  methods  of  destroying  the 
greatest  number  of  their  brethren,  within  the  shortest  time,  and 
with  the  greatest  impunity  to  themselvs,  and  then  devoting  all 
their  powers  of  mind  and  body  to  the  exemplification  of  these 
Moloch  accomplishments,  in  the  siege  and  on  the  battel-field. 
War  corrupts  the  moral  taste  and  hardens  the  heart;  cherishes 
and  strengthens  the  base  and  violent  passions ;  destroys  the  dis- 
tinguishing features  of  Christian  charity,  its  universality,  and  its 
love  of  enemys :  turns  into  mockery  and  contempt,  the  test  vir- 
tue of  Christians,  humility  ;  weakens  the  sense  of  moral  obli- 
gation, banishes  the  spirit  of  improvement,  usefulnes,  and  bene- 
volence, and  inculcates  the  horrible  maxim,  that  murder  and 
robbery  ar  matters  of  state  expediency. 


184 

"  The  day  shall  come,  the  great  avenging  day, 
"  Whieh  Troy's  proud  glories  in  the  dust  shall  lay: 
"  When  Priam's  power,  and  Priam's  self  shall  fall, 
"  And  one  prodigious  ruin  swallow  all."* 

In  vain  had  Pyrrhus  exclaimd,  as  for  all  the  warrior 
gamblei'3  of  antiquity,  "  One  such  victory  more,  and  I  am 
undone."  In  vain  had  the  disgrace  and  the  sufferings  of 
Miltiades  and  Nicias,  of  Themistocles,  Pausanias  and  Alci- 
biades ;  of  Marius  and  Sylla,  of  Hannibal,  Pompey  and 
Caesar,  filld  the  nations  with  pity  and  dismay.  The  lamen- 
tations of  the  widow  and  the  tears  of  the  orphan,  the  broken 
hearts  of  age  and  the  blasted  hopes  of  youth  and  beauty  and 
love,  had  pleaded  in  vain  against  the  law  of  violence.  The 
earth  had  drunk  in  the  lifeblood  of  the  slain  and  hidden  their 
mangled  bodys  in  her  bosom  :  and  there  the  garden,  the 
orchard  and  the  harvest  florishd  once  more  beautiful  in  the 
tints  of  nature,  and  rich  in  the  melody  of  fount,  and  leaf, 
and  breeze.  The  waters  had  swallowd  into  their  depths 
the  dying  and  the  dead,  and  the  mind  fleets  both  of  victor 
and  vanquishd  ;  and  again  the  waves  danc'd  in  their  sport- 
ivness,  or  rushd  in  their  fury,  over  the  battel-plain  of  hostil 
navys.     The  inocence  of  childhood  had  forgotten  the  pa- 

*  These  lines  ar  spoken  by  Agamemnon  in  the  fourth  Book, 
v.  161,  as  a  part  of  a  speech  to  Menelaus,  and  the  very  same 
occur  in  the  sixth  Book,  v.  448,  in  the  address  of  Hector  to  An- 
dromache. Pope  has  translated  these  last  so  very  differently 
from  those  in  the  fourth  Book,  that  none  could  ever  suspect 
them  to  be  the  same  in  the  original.  If  a  modern  poet,  what- 
ever might  be  his  genius,  learning  and  taste,  had  ventur'd  on  the 
endless  repetition  of  the  same  epithets,  lines  and  even  passages, 
like  Homer,  or  had  dar'd,  like  Lucretius,  to  copy  in  one  book, 
twenty-five  lines  out  of  a  preceding  book,  the  critic's  lash  in- 
scrib'd  with  the  motto,  "  Judex  damnatur,  cum  nocens,  absolvi- 
turf  would  hav  given  him  no  rest,  even  in  the  grave. 


185 

rent's  death,  the  widow  had  recoverd  the  lost  smile  of  former 
years,  the  miserable  old  man  had  been  gatherd  to  his  fa- 
thers, and  afection  had  found  new  objects  for  its  attach- 
ments. 

The  ancient  and  modern  Assyrian,  the  Babylonish,  Me- 
dian and  Persian  empires  ;  the  kingdoms  of  ancient  and  mo- 
dern Egypt,  of  Judah  and  Israel,  and  of  all  the  successors 
of  Alexander ;  the  commercial  states  of  Tyre,  and  Rhodes, 
and  Carthage  ;"*  the  republics  of  Greece  and  Italy,  and  the 

*  The  question  has  occurd  to  me  as  among  the  most  interest- 
ing in  the  history  of  man,  what  would  hav  been  the  fate  of  the 
ancient  world  if  Carthage  had  conquerd  Rome?  The  policy  of 
Rome  was  exclusivly  warlike.  That  of  Carthage  was  funda- 
mentaly  commercial.  They  were  to  the  ancient  world,  what 
France  and  England  ar  to  the  modern.  And  who  can  doubt 
that  the  influence  of  England,  since  she  became  decidedly  com- 
mercial, has  been  more  beneficial  than  that  of  the  modern  Ro- 
mans, as  Fisher  Ames  styles  the  French]  Had  Carthage  tri- 
umphd,  it  is  certain  that  the  commercial  spirit  would  hav  pene- 
trated evry  where;  and  must  hav  become  the  characteristic 
of  evry  city,  colony  and  province  of  the  Carthaginian  empire. 
The  spirit  of  commerce  is  essentialy  peaceful.  It  humanizes 
the  savage,  civilizes  the  barbarian,  and  elevates  the  polishd.  It 
is  the  patron  of  arts  and  sciences;  it  is  consistent  with,  for  it 
fosters,  enlightens,  and  strengthens  freedom.  Commercial  states 
hav  always  been  to  a  greater  extent  than  others  (cceteris  pari- 
bus) the  patrons  of  arts  and  the  seats  of  liberty.  It  is  tru,  we 
hav  not  even  a  vestige  of  Carthaginian  literature  and  arts ; 
but  we  owe  it  first  to  the  fact,  that  the  history  of  military  na- 
tions, like  that  of  Greece  and  Rome,  is  miserably  barren  in  all 
that  belongs  to  the  history  of  society,  political,  commercial,  and 
literary;  and  next  to  the  fact,  that  the  Romans,  in  their  fury  and 
jealousy,  destroyd  the  Carthaginian  state  and  people  as  uterly 
its  their  metropolis.  Shall  I  be  told  that  the  ascendancy  of 
Carthage  would  hav  involvd  the  loss  of  the  whole  body  of 
Latin  literature]  Grant  it — and  what  hav  Roman  letters  done 
q2 


186 

barbarians  of  Spain  and  Gaul,  of  Germany,  Switzerland  and 
Belgium,  had  submited  to  the  a]l-conquering  eagle.  The 
terrible  judgment,   "  All   they  that  take  the  sword,  shall 

for  mankind,  comparable  to  the  misery  and  ruin,  the  frauds  and 
violence,  the  crimes  and  vices,  which  Rome,  thro'  a  life  of  more 
than  a  thousand  years,  scatterd  like  the  ashes  and  lava  of  iEtna, 
over  all  the  neighboring  countrys?  Nor  must  we  forget  that 
the  Latin  language  is  little  better  than  a  very  inferior  idiom  of 
the  noble  Greek,  and  Latin  literature,  almost  a  slavish  imitator 
of  the  richer,  more  various  and  sublimer  literature  of  Greece. 
Now,  if  we  suppose  Carthage  instead  of  Rome  to  hav  conquerd 
Greece  and  her  Asiatic  colonys,  it  is  obvious,  that  the  commer- 
cial policy  of  the  former  was  far  more  consistent  with  the  insti- 
tutions and  pursuits  of  all  the  Grecian  states  except  Sparta,  than 
the  military  policy  of  the  latter.  Is  it  not  then  probable,  that 
Greece  would  hav  been  regenerated  under  the  peaceful  influ- 
ences of  Carthage,  when  she  was  trodden  under  foot  and  anni- 
hilated by  the  warlike  policy  of  Rome1?  Between  the  Grecian 
states  and  the  Roman  power,  there  was  no  bond  of  union,  but 
that  of  fear  and  weakness  on  the  one  side,  of  insolence  and 
power  on  the  other.  But  between  them  and  Carthage,  there 
would  hav  been  the  strong  bond  of  mutual  interest.  Would  not 
the  entire  character  of  all  those  communitys  hav  been  chang'd  ; 
.and  instead  of  sleeping  the  sleep  of  death  in  the  arms  of  Roman 
despotism,  would  they  not  hav  arisen  to  a  new  and  better  life, 
that  of  commercial  enterprize  1  Grecian  letters,  as  the  literature, 
not  of  dead  states  and  enslav'd  communitys,  but  of  a  living  peo- 
ple, would  hav  exerted  a  commanding  influence  over  the  whole 
of  the  countrys  explor'd  and  coloniz'd  by  Carthaginian  com- 
merce, or  conquerd  by  Carthaginian  power.  And  to  extend  our 
view  still  farther,  how  much  more  consonant  to  the  genius  of 
Christianity,  and  how  much  better  fitted  to  receiv  and  extend  its 
influence,  would  hav  been  a  host  of  commercial  states,  around 
the  Mediterranean,  than  the  provincial  tyranys  of  imperial  Rome? 
For  myself,  therefore,  I  should  not  hesitate  to  prefer  the  ascen- 
dancy of  the  commercial  oligarchy  of  Carthage,  to  that  of  the  mi- 
litary aristocracy  of  Rome. 


187 

perish  with  the  sword,"  had  been  written  in  letters  of  blood 
on  the  land  and  the  ocean,  on  the  palaces  of  kings,  and  the 
cottages  of  peasants,  on  the  senate  houses  of  the  people,  and 
the  temples  of  their  fals  and  cruel  gods.  The  Roman  em- 
pire, the  grave  of  a  hundred  states,  was  destind  to  ilustrate 
more  remarkably  than  all  the  preceding  nations,  that  the 
law  of  violence  is  a  self-destroyer,  remorsless  and  insatiable. 
Her  power  had  been  constantly  extending,  during  a  period 
of  nearly  eight  hundred  years,  till  a  single  city,  with  its 
fields  and  gardens,  had  swelld  to  the  magnitude  of  a  giant 
empire,  embracing  the  fairest  portions  of  Africa,  Europe  and 
Asia.  But  her  law  had  ever  been  and  was  still  the  law  of 
violence.  Her  battel  shout  of  defiance  had  pierc'd  the  deep 
gloom  of  the  Hercynian  forest ;  and  the  Goth,  the  Burgun- 
dian,  the  Vandal  and  the  Hun,  came  down  to  the  feast  of 
victory,  at  the  trumpet-summons.  Their  progress  was  ter- 
rific, as  when  the  mountain  torrent  rushes  in  its  fury,  to 
sweep  away  the  vinyard  and  the  harvest,  the  peasant's 
cabin,  the  shepherd  and  his  flock.  Again  the  race  was  to 
the  swift  and  the  battel  to  the  strong.  The  Pyrenees  and 
the  Alps  and  the  Balkan  range  were  feeble  barriers  against 
the  children  of  eternal  snows ;  and  as  the  barbarians  pourd 
down  from  those  mountain  summits  the  wild  music  of  their 
battel  songs  over  the  beautiful  and  delicious  regions  of  Ibe- 
ria, Italy,  and  Greece,  the  Roman  empire  confessd  in  her 
agony  of  fear,  that  the  sword  was  her  only  title  to  all  her 
dominions,  from  the  rising  to  the  setting  sun.  What  pencil 
can  faithful y  picture  the  terrible  realitys  of  that  ferocious 
struggle  between  the  barbarians  and  the  civiliz'd,  with  ail 
their  science  and  literature,  with  all  their  arts  of  peace  and 
of  war  1  The  Roman  empire,  the  mightyest,  the  most  mag- 
nificent, the  costlyest  structure  of  the  whole  ancient  world, 
perishd  by  the  sword  and  faggot  of  barbarians,  (itself  the 
colossal  Temple  of  War,)     The  sublime  propylcea,  that 


188 

iookd  abroad  over  the  great  desart  and  up  the  vally  of  the 
Nile  :  The  grand  and  beautiful  portico,  that  fac'd  the  Medi- 
terranean, lay  prostrate  in  ruins.  The  august  colonades, 
that  towerd  along  the  shores  of  the  Atlantic  and  the  banks 
of  the  Euphrates,  were  defac'd  and  shatterd.  The  vast  roof 
which  had  shelterd  a  hundred  nations,  the  walls,  whose 
ample  circuit  had  embrac'd  a  continent  of  territory,  were 
rent,  and  cast  down,  and  scatterd  far  and  wide.  Even  the 
very  shrine  and  altar  of  the  god  of  war,  the  self-styl'd  eter- 
nal city,  was  burnt,  and  sackd  and  enslav'd  by  Alaric  and 
Attila,  by  Genserie,  Totila  and  Theodoric.  Of  all  that 
spacious  and  majestic  structure,  nothing  remaind  in  western 
Europe,  but  a  chaos  of  ruins,  and  here  and  there  a  pillar, 
solitary  and  solemn,  as  those  of  Colonna,  Palmyra  or  Chel- 
minar.  The  only  inscription,  which  the  conquerers  vouch- 
safe for  the  monument  of  the  most  ilustrious  and  powerful 
of  ancient  empires,  was  the  prophecy  so  fearfuly  fulfilld, 
"  They  that  take  the  siaord  shall  perish  with  the  sword." 

To  the  provincial  military  tyranys  of  imperial  Rome, 
succeeded  the  feudal  aristocracys  and  monarchys  of  the  vic- 
tors ;  whilst  the  sudden  rise  and  rapid  progress  of  the  mar- 
tial and  ilustrious  dominion  of  the  Saracens,  contributed  to 
perpetuate  the  law  of  violence.  The  whole  structure  of  so- 
ciety in  the  civiliz'd  portions  of  Europe  then  became  more 
decidedly  military,  than  it  had  ever  been ;  for  the  feudal 
system  was  singularly  adapted  to  a  state  of  endles  warfare, 
at  home  and  abroad.  According  to  the  genius  of  that  sys- 
tem, martial  law  was  the  great,  the  universal  law  of  so- 
ciety. The  people  as  well  as  the  rulers,  were  all  soldiers, 
and  evry  community  exhibited  the  spectacle  of  a  standing 
army  and  a  permanent  encampment.  Age  after  age  rolld 
away,  and  at  length  the  arts  of  peace  so  far  prevaild  over 
those  of  war,  that  society  lost  its  military  character,  but 
the  administration  of  government  and  the  spirit  o/'rulers 


189 

remaind  the  same.  The  people  had  indeed  been  chang'd, 
under  the  influence  of  religion  and  letters,  of  agriculture, 
manufactures  and  commerce.  They,  indeed,  had  converted 
their  spears  into  pruninghooks  and  their  swords  into  plough- 
shares ;  but  the  great  and  permanent  institutions  of  society 
partook  not  of  the  same  spirit.  The  sword  was  still  the 
scepter  of  the  monarch,  and  the  casque  of  the  warrior  his 
favorit  crown.  Governments,  instead  of  being  the  fountains 
of  peace  abroad  and  happines  at  home,  became  the  instru- 
ments of  misery  and  injustice,  in  the  hands  of  conquerors 
and  tyrants.  The  people,  in  the  mean  time,  went  onward 
in  the  improvement  of  their  condition  ;  yet  still  they  exercis'd 
comparativly  no  influence  on  the  character  of  rulers.'  Altho* 
the  institutions  of  society  can  hav  but  one  rational  object, 
the  good  of  the  people,  yet  the  end  was  forever  sacrific'd  to 
the  means,  the  good  of  the  people  to  the  power  of  rulers. 
This  state  of  things  still  prevails,  for  experience  testifys  that 
if  the  law  of  war,  be  no  longer  the  fundamental  law  of  Eu- 
ropean society,  it  is  still  the  fundamental  law  of  their  govern* 
merits.  The  fate  of  all  those  nations  still  depends,  to  a  vast 
extent,  on  the  personal  character  of  monarchs  and  their 
counselors  ;  and  such  must  continu  to  be  the  destiny  of  that 
continent,  until  the  progress  of  events  shall  hav  recon- 
structed their  governments,  and  hav  remodeld  the  whole 
scheme  of  administration  in  conformity  with  the  great  truth, 

THE    PEOPLE    AR    MASTERS,   AND     THE    RULERS,    SERVANTS. 

Thus  far,  the  chief  responsibility  of  their  rulers  has  been  to 
the  law  of  violence,  to  the  ax  and  the  scaffold.  And  altho* 
something  has  been  gradualy  done  in  some  portions  of  Eu- 
rope, to  meliorate  the  political  condition  of  the  people,  and 
restrain  the  power  and  ambition  of  rulers ;  yet,  if  the  ad- 
vancement of  reform  be  in  after  years,  correspondent  to  the 
past,  the  American  republic  will  number  a  hundred  states, 
before  the  work  shall  have  been  accomplishd.     Fortunately 


190 

for  the  world,  it  can  hardly  be  said,  that  there  is  now  in  it 
any  state  of  society,  constituted  on  the  principles  of  war.  No 
military  republics,  like  those  of  Greece  and  Rome,  torment 
the  nations  and  entail  on  their  own  posterity  the  curs  of  fire 
and  sword.  The  feudal  system,  as  the  domestic  and  social 
constitution  of  European  communitys,  has  uterly  perishd. 
We  may  well  be  surpris'd  that  the  Athenians  should  hav 
petitiond  Valentinian  for  the  restoration  of  the  Eleusinian 
mysterys  ;  but  what  would  be  the  measure  of  our  wonder,  if 
the  people  of  Western  Europe  should  desire  the  re-establish- 
ment of  the  power,  so  tremendously  abus'd  by  feudal  lords 
and  monarchs  ?  As  soon  should  we  expect  the  age  of  Ar- 
thur and  the  Round  Table,  of  Charlemagne  and  his  Paladius 
to  return,  as  to  see  the  people  in  any  country  again,  modeld 
on  the  military  principles  of  the  feudosocial  compact.  Hence, 
the  great  object  of  reform  is  government  ;  and  its  recon- 
struction any  where,  on  principles  of  responsibility  to  the 
people,  will  be  a  glorious  triumph  in  the  cause  of  Peace. 

It  must  be  obvious,  that  the  interest  and  happiness  of  the 
people,  ar  hostil  to  war ;  that  if  left  to  themselvs,  however 
ignorant  and  uneducated,  they  would  scarcely  ever  make 
war ;  that  of  the  battels  and  sieges  which  hav  brought  such 
misery  into  the  world,  not  one  in  a  hundred  would  hav  oc- 
curd,  had  it  depended  on  the  people ;  that  war  has  no  charms 
for  them  ;  that  peace  is  full  of  attractions ;  that  all  their  per  - 
sonal  habits  and  social  intercom's,  all  their  employments, 
afections  and  dutys,  are  inimical  to  war  and  friendly  to  peace. 
How  demoniac  then,  is  that  spirit  (and  such  was  the  spirit 
of  all  the  founders  of  the  ancient  republics  and  of  the  feudal 
states)  which  debauches  the  people  by  ambition  and  the  love 
of  military  fame,  and  breathes "%to  all  their  institutions,  as 
its  living  principle,  the  spirit  of  bloodshed  and  violence  ! 
The  good  sense,  the  dutys  and  afections  of  the  people  revolt 


191 

at  such  things ;  and  the  ascendancy  of  their  influence  in  its 
natural  wholesome  state,  must  exterminate  war. 

I  hav  said  that  the  most  ignorant  states  of  society  contain 
in  themselvs  the  elements  of  peace,  not  of  war.  Who  can 
believ  that  the  mass  of  society  in  the  countrys  ravag'd  by  the 
ancient  or  modern  warrior,  enterd  into  the  spirit  of  those 
wars,  any  otherwise  than  as  sufferers,  burning  with  rage  and 
revenge  at  their  miserys?  This  is  equaly  true,  of  nearly 
all  the  wars,  that  hav  ever  existed.  The  most  ignorant  and 
unrefin'd,  as  well  as  the  most  enlightend  and  polishd  states 
of  society  are  equaly  hostil  to  war,  in  their  dutys,  interests, 
afections  and  employments.  Justly  to  represent  these,  is  the 
great  duty  of  government.  To  giv  them  an  authoritativ 
voice  in  affairs  of  state^  is  the  great  object  of  evry  tru  friend 
of  the  people;  but  the  people,  unless  educated,  cannot  exer- 
cise a  wholesome  authoritativ  control  over  rulers.  The 
friends  of  peace  therefore  must  exert  their  influence  chiefly  in 
evry  such  country,  through  the  medium  of  education. 

What  then  shall  that  scheme  of  education  be  7  Shall  it 
contain  in  itself  the  elements  of  peace  or  war?  Education  is 
the  most  eficient  and  lasting  means  for  revolutionizing  so- 
ciety. This  can  make  the  peaceful,  warlike,  and  the  war- 
like, peaceful ;  the  ignorant,  intelligent,  and  the  civiliz'd  bar- 
barous'; the  enlightend  superstitious,  and  the  superstitious 
enlightend ;  the  cruel  compassionate,  and  the  meek,  fero- 
cious ;  the  freeman  a  slave,  and  the  slave  a  freeman ;  the  pa- 
gan a  Christian,  and  the  Christian  an  idolater.  The  great 
object  of  education  ought  then  to  be,  to  stamp  on  evry  such 
state  of  society,  the  peaceful  character.  Educate  fob 
peace,  not  fob  wae.  Giv  the  religion  of  peace,  if  it  be 
not  already  there;  and  let  all  the  institutions  of  education, 
breathe  its  spirit,  and  bear  its  divine  image.  Giv  as  instruc- 
tors and  models,  Jesus  and  his  Apostles ;  the  first,  the  truest, 
the  only  enlightend  friends  of  the  people.     They  only,  of  all 


192 

the  lawgivers  and  rulers  and  teachers  that  ever  livd,  hav 
seen  and  acted  on  the  principle,  that  the  interests  and  hap- 
piness of  the  people  are  inseparable  from  peace  and  irre- 
concilable with  war  ;  that  the  habitations  of  peace  ar  the 
dwelling-places  of  love,  humility,  forbearance,  resignation 
and  evry  Christian  virtue;  while  the  mansions  of  war,  ar 
the  natural  abodes  of  crimes  and  vices,  of  all  destructiv  pas- 
sions, of  heathen  virtues,  not  of  Christian  perfections. 
Christianity  teaches,  that  war  is  the  enemy — peace  the  friend 
of  God  and  man.  Education  then  must  be  imbued  deeply, 
vitaly,  extensivly,  with  the  spirit  of  the  religion  of  peace.  If 
not,  it  is  the  enemy  of  that  religion,  and  its  influences  ar 
perpetualy  at  work  to  undermine  the  precepts,  and  destroy 
the  examples  of  Christ  and  his  Apostles.  With  the  reli- 
gion of  peace,  the  people  must  hav  the  education  of 
peace,  if  their  best  interests  are  consulted.  The  principles 
and  operations  of  war,  the  character,  achievments  and  glory 
of  the  warrior,  hav  no  sympathys  with  the  education  of 
peace,  as  they  hav  none  with  the  religion  of  peace.  They 
ar  enemys  and  monsters  in  the  one,  as  well  as  in  the  other 
system.  I  speak  therefore,  the  language  of  a  faithful,  en- 
lightend  friend  of  the  people,  when  I  declare  that  their  high- 
est good  is  not  consulted,  unless  the  whole  scheme  of 
education  be  in  its  elements,  practice  and  influence,  deci- 
dedly, unchangeably  peaceful. 

Let  us  bring  this  to  the  test  of  experiment.  Suppose  then, 
two  states  of  society,  of  the  same  description,  equaly  igno- 
rant and  unciviliz'd,  both  of  them  heathen,  subject  to  the  same 
imperfect  forms  of  government,  and  more  or  less  addicted  to 
war.  To  the  one,  let  us  send  Christian  missionarys,  with 
the  pure  religion  of  peace,  and  the  simple  education  of  peace 
— to  the  other,  the  same  Christian  missionary,  with  the  New 
Testament  in  one  hand,  and  in  the  other,  the  present  educa- 
tion of  Christian  countrys.     The  former  carry  in  their  right 


193 

hands,  the  scriptures,  and  in  their  left,  works  on  natural  and 
moral  science,  and  on  all  the  arts  of  peace,  untainted  by  war 
and  the  warrior.  The  latter  bears  the  same  holy  works,  but 
with  them  ar  intermingled  history  and  biography,  poetry 
and  eloquence,  breathing  the  spirit,  extolling  the  achiev- 
ments,  and  displaying  in  fascinating  colors,  the  glory  of  the 
warrior's  life,  and  the  loftier  glory  of  his  death.  Do  we  not . 
at  once  perceiv  the  beautiful  consistency  and  harmony  of  the 
one  system;  the  incongruity  and  discord  of  the  other?  Can 
we  doubt  the  results  ?  The  former  will  make  a  truly  Chris- 
tian people,  Christian  in  thought,  word  and  deed,  at  home 
and  abroad,  to  their  neighbors  and  strangers,  to  friends  and 
enemys.  The  latter  will  produce  a  state  of  society,  precisely 
such  as  exists  in  the  most  highly  favord  Christian  countrys  ; 
half  heathen  and  half  Christian  ;  half  peaceful  and  half  war- 
like; consisting  of  elements  forever  at  war  with  each  other, 
because  in  their  very  nature  irreconcilable.  Who  can  hesi- 
tate one  moment  which  to  prefer?  Who  does  not  see,  that, 
in  one  state  of  society  all  the  influences  which  act  on  the 
child,  the  youth,  the  man,  ar  Christian,  peaceful;  whilst  in 
the  other  the  irrational  union  exists,  between  light  and  dark- 
ness, violence  and  peace,  love  and  revenge,  humility  and 
pride,  the  apostle  and  the  warrior,  Christ  and  the  god  of  war.* 

*  I  look  upon  the  missions  to  the  heathen  in  our  day  as  among 
the  most  interesting  of  colonial  experiments.  We  think  nothing 
of  them  now:  and  look  at  them  with  as  little  concern,  as  the  na- 
tions of  Europe  once  lookd  at  the  forlorn  and  helpless  settle- 
ments, scatterd  along  the  coast  of  North  America,  apparently, 
as  carelesly  and  unprofitably  as  the  very  seaweed  cast  by  the 
storm  on  the  beach.  But  the  wonderful,  the  unexampled  career 
of  these  may  teach  us,  what  those  are  destind  to  become.  The 
refugees  to  North  America  left  England  at  the  most  important 
crisis  in  the  history  of  society  in  that  country;  when  protestan- 
tism was  deeply  felt  and  civil  and  political  liberty  were  better 

R 


194 

Impious,  vile,  unnatural  and  ruinous  as  is  the  union  be- 
tween pagan  and  Christian  influences  in  education,  it  is  pre- 

understood,  than  they  had  ever  been  before.  The  missionary's 
leav  our  country  under  similar,  but  superior  auspices.  They 
leavus  at  a  time,  when  religion  has  been  deliverd  from  its  great 
enemys,  intolerance  and  church  establishments,  and  when  civil 
and  political  liberty  hav  the  best  safeguards  they  hav  ever 
had,  in  our  written  constitutions  and  forms  of  government ;  and 
in  the  principles  of  a  free  press,  and  of  general  education,  uni- 
versaly  acknowlegd  and  reduc'd  to  practice.  They  carry  with 
them  also  a  purer  and  simpler  morality,  and  a  spirit  of  benevo- 
lence, more  various,  practical  and  enlightend,  than  has  ever  yet 
been  known.  Our  ancestors  came  to  the  barren  shores  and 
the  pathless  wilderness,  from  personal  considerations  entirely, 
though  of  a  pure  and  noble  character.  But  the  missionary  goes 
forth,  solely  under  the  influence  of  the  most  disinterested  mo- 
tivs  of  self  sacrifice,  to  instruct  the  ignorant,  to  civilize  the 
savage  or  the  barbarous,  to  reclaim  the  wandering  and  idle,  to 
bless  the  miserable,  and  to  christianize  the  heathen.  If  such 
results,  so  fair  and  glorious,  hav  sprung  from  the  principles  of 
our  ancestors,  how  much  more  grand  and  beautiful  must  be  the 
results,  that  ar  destind  to  spring  from  the  purer  and  nobler,  the 
more  simple,  comprehensiv  and  beneficent  principles  carryd 
forth  by  the  missionarys  !  And  do  we  not  see  the  prodigious 
difference  between  the  warlike  habits  and  martial  spirit  of  the 
North  American  colonists,  so  continualy  calld  into  action  by  the 
Indians,  French  and  Spaniards ;  and  the  peaceful  character  of 
our  missionary  familys — unchangably  such,  whether  in  Cey- 
lon, Burmah  or  Madagascar,  at  the  cape  of  Good  Hope,  or  amid 
the  islands  of  the  Pacific1?  The  law  of  violence  banishd  our  an- 
cestors from  their  nativ  land;  but  the  law  of  peace,  draws  the 
missionary,  as  with  the  cords  of  love,  to  leav  his  home  for  the 
land  of  strangers.  I  regard  missionary  familys,  as  peculiarly 
colony s  of  peace:  and  hail  them  as  the  founders  of  better  states 
of  society,  than  we  hav  ever  seen;  because  altogether  more 
consistent  with  the  simple,  pure,  humble,  peaceful  spirit  of 
Christianity. 


195 

cisely  that,  which  exists  in  Christian  countrys,  and  is  per- 
petuated by  all  their  schemes,  in  defiance  of  the  principles 
and  example,  the  life  and  death  of  the  Redeemer  and  his 
apostles.  Let  the  course  of  study  in  the  schools,  academys 
and  colleges,  even  of  our  own  land  be  examind,  and  not  one 
will  be  found  constructed  on  the  basis  of  Christian  influences, 
of  peace  and  love,  of  humility,  long  suffering,  forgiveness 
and  resignation.  He  will  find  the  paramount  influences 
evry  where,  ar  heathen,  those  of  Greek  and  Roman  heroes, 
those  of  the  fabulous,  heroic  and  historic  ages  of  classic  an- 
tiquity. The  history  of  wars,  and  the  biographys  of  war- 
riors ar  almost  the  only  food  of  that  kind  vouchsaf'd  to  the 
youthful  mind.  The  acts  of  the  apostles,  ar  taught  scarcely 
anywhere:  the  commentarys  of  Caesar  and  the  life  of  Agri- 
cola,  robbers  and  murderers  in  the  sight  of  God,  evry 
where ;  while  the  lives  of  Howard  and  Martyn,  of  Johnson 
and  D wight,  of  Penn,  Jones,  Spencer  and  Burke,  men  of 
whom  even  the  Christian  world  is  unworthy,  ar  study d  no 
where.  The  gospels  are  seldom  text-books  of  instruction. 
The  iEneid  and  Iliad  always.  Thus  the  unfailing  operation 
of  all  our  schemes  is  to  bring  war  and  the  warrior,  in  evry 
variety  of  form,  to  act  on  the  mind  and  heart,  the  imagina- 
tion and  memory,  the  pleasures  and  prospects  of  Christian 
youth,  thro'  the  whole  course  of  their  education,  ar  we  not 
thus  coupling  indissolubly  in  the  marriage-bonds  of  educa- 
tion, peace  and  violence,  virtue  and  vice,  life  and  death?  Is 
it  possible  that  this  can  be  right  1  Is  it  not  like  the  pagan, 
to  weav  garlands  for  the  feast  of  friendship  from  the  desolate 
ivy,  the  wild  tapestry  of  ruins  1  Ar  we  not  watering  the 
fruits  and  flowers  of  paradise,  with  waters  from  the  sea  of 
Sodom  ? 

And  who  ar  the  guilty?  If  the  voices  of  the  just  made 
perfect,  of  angels  and  archangels  could  reply,  that  fearful 
answer  to  evry  Christian,  and  especialy  to  evry  Christian 


196 

minister,  would  be,  "  Thou  art  the  man!"  The  virtues  of 
Jesus  Christ  ar  the  very  r ever s  of  what  ar  calld  the  he- 
roic virtues  of  classic  antiquity.  We  know  that  he  never 
would  hav  acted  like  the  great  men  of  Greece  and  Rome : 
that  the-object  of  his  system  was  uterly  to  a bolish  theirs  : 
that,  his  or  theirs,  must  eventualy  rule  the  world ;  that  one 
or  the  other,  must  perish. — Now,  whichever  conquers,  can 
only  conquer  thro9  the  power  of  education.  Giv  to  the 
religion  of  peace  the  education  of  peace,  and  its  victory  is 
sure.  Giv  to  it  the  education  of  war  and  violence,  the  in- 
fluence of  heathen  heroism  and  glory,  and  whilst  these  pre- 
vail, it  never  can  conquer.  The  lion  and  the  lamb  do  indeed 
lie  down  together ;  but  the  lamb  is  the  slave  or  the  victim  of 
the  lion.  Hitherto,  such  has  been  the  lot  of  Christianity. 
It  has  ever  been  the  slave  of  heathen  influences,  of  anger  and 
violence,  and  evry  evil  passion :  it  has  been  forever  the  vic- 
tim of  war  and  the  warrior.  And  why? — because  its  pro- 
fessors, and  abov  all,  its  holy  ministry,  hav  not  vindicated 
its  authority,  cost  what  it  might,  against  war  and  the  warrior 
in  evry  form;  because  they  hav  not  held  property,  life, 
liberty,  character,  as  nothing  in  comparison  of  fidelity  to  the 
peace  principles  of  Jesus  Christ.  Is  it  not  absolutely  aston- 
ishing, that  those  who  hav  bound  on  their  souls  the  vow  of 
humility,  love,  forgiveness,  forbearance,  ar  yet  constantly 
employd,  by  their  schemes  of  education,  in  impairing  and 
even  destroying,  those  peaceful,  holy  influences?  With  fear 
and  trembling,  with  a  deep  feeling  of  awe  and  respect,  with 
profound  emotions  of  gratitude  to  the  clergy  for  what  they 
hav  done,  and  with  a  strong  faith  in  their  entire  regeneration 
in  future  years,  I  speak  what  I  believ  a  solemn  truth.  Their 
compromise  tvith  war  and  the  warrior,  has  produced  incal- 
culable mischiefs  to  religion,  liberty,  education  and  peace. 
They  hav  tolerated,  when  they  ought  to  hav  condemnd  on 
principle,  unconditionaly  and  inexorably,  tho'  calmly  and 


197 

afectionately,  war  and  the  warrior  in  evry  form.  They  ac- 
knowlege  their  master  to  be  the  Prince  of  peace.  They  know 
that  he  never  would  hav  raisd  or  commanded  an  army,  that 
he  would  not  hav  employd  war,  in  any  shape  or  under  any 
emergency,  as  an  instrument  to  punish  his  enemys  or  deliver 
his  people.  They  must  acknowlege,  that  if  he  were  the  ruler 
of  a  nation,  and  is  he  not  the  rightful  ruler  of  all?  he  would 
command  them  to  return  good  for  evil,  blessing  for  cursing, 
love  for  hatred,  entreatys  for  insult,  peace  for  war.  They 
cannot  deny,  that,  a  nation  governd  by  implicit  faith  in 
Christ,  and  by  a  simple  conformity  to  his  laws,  would  hav 
neither  army  nor  navy,  that  an  arsenal  or  a  cannon  foundry, 
would  be  unknown  among  them ;  that  sword  and  helmet, 
banner  and  lance,  could  not  be  found  there ;  that  a,  fortress 
would  be  as  little  tolerated,  as  a  temple  of  idols ;  and  the 
glory  of  the  warrior  would  be  as  earnestly  condemn'd  and  as 
carefully  banishd,  as  the  leprosy  or  the  plague. 

All  this,  the  Christian  ministry  know.  They  condemn 
dueling  in  evry  form,  between  individuals,  but  they  excuse 
and  even  justify  it,  between  nations.  They  deny  the  law- 
fulnes  of  dueling,  and  that  it  affords  either  remedy  or  satis- 
faction to  an  injur'd  individual ;  yet,  they  tolerate  in  nations 
similarly  situated,  an  appeal  to  arms.  If  a  friend  should 
call  out  the  treacherous  confidant  who  had  slanderd  and  be- 
trayd  him ;  if  a  parent  should  avenge  in  a  duel,  the  injurys 
to  his  son ;  if  the  son  should  challenge  the  man,  who  had 
insulted  his  father ;  if  the  brother  should  summon  to  mortal 
combat  the  seducer  of  his  sister  ,*  yea,  even  if  the  husband, 
in  obedience  to  the  law  of  honor,  should  slay  the  wretch,  who 
had  blasted  his  hopes,  degraded  his  children,  and  polluted  his 
home,  Christian  ministers  would  not  dare  to  justify,  or 
even  to  excuse  him.  To  the  friend,  the  parent,  the  son,  the 
brother,  the  husband,  they  would  say,  Jesus  would  hav  for- 
given, and  hav  prayd  for  such  enemys— he  would  hav 
e2 


198 

sav'd  both  body  and  soul,  not  hav  destroy'd  them.  He  de- 
mands this  sacrifice  as  a  proof  that  you  ar  his  disciples.  Go 
and  do  likewise.  Now  it  must  be  conceded  that,  a  nation 
can  sustain  no  injury,  comparable  to  those  of  the  insulted 
and  dishonour'd  friend,  and  brother,  parent,  son  and  husband. 
Nor  can  they  put  it  on  the  ground  that  nations  hav  no  ar- 
biter, whilst  individuals  may  appeal  to  the  laws  of  the  coun- 
try; for  the  most  aggravated  and  cruel  private  injury s  ar 
the  very  ones,  which  the  laws  of  society  do  not  redress. 
Wars,  if  not  the  creatures  of  passion,  caprice,  or  ambition, 
originate  almost  entirely  from  questions  of  property ;  but 
duels,  from  insulted  honor,  outrag'd  feelings,  and  a  violation 
of  the  most  sacred  domestic  rights. 

It  becomes  then  the  Christian  ministry,  and  I  ask  it  of 
them  as  a  dutiful  son,  as  a  faithful  friend,  as  an  afectionate, 
respectful  counselor,  to  consider  solemnly  and  prayerful y, 
whether  they  are  acting  the  part,  which  becomes  the  mes- 
sengers of  the  Prince  of  peace.  I  entreat  them  to  examin 
seriously  of  what  spirit  they  ar,  and  whether  to  them,  on 
the  all-important  subject  of  peace  and  war,  may  not  be  ad- 
dressd  the  pathetic  complaint  of  the  prophet  and  the  psalmist, 
"  I  was  wounded  in  the  house  of  my  friends,"  "my  familiar 
friend  hath  lifted  up  his  heel  against  me."  The  clergy, 
both  as  individuals  and  as  a  body,  hav  been  the  decided 
enemys  of  private  war  and  of  the  duelist,  ever  since  the 
delirium  of  the  age  of  chivalry  had  pass'd  away ;  but  hav 
they  not  been  more  or  less  the  vindicators  and  apologists  of 
public  war  and  of  the  warrior  in  various  forms  ?  They 
forbid  the  private  man  to  do,  what  they  know  the  Savior 
never  would  hav  done;  yet  they  sanction  the  public  man, 
and  private  men,  under  his  control,  in  punishing  insult  or 
avenging  injury,  when  they  know  that  Christ  never  would. 
And,  on  what  principle  is  it,  that  the  Christian  minister  can 
approach  the  throne  of  God,  in  the  name  and  through  the 


199 

intercession  of  the  meek  and  lowly  Jesus,  the  Prince  of  peace, 
and  ask  a  blessing  on  the  warrior's  arms,  even  of  his^  own 
country,  or  return  thanks  to  Heaven  for  his  success  in 
battel?*     Would  not  similar  supplications  or  thanksgivings 

*  The  sentiment  of  Commodore  Decatur,  "  Our  country — may 
she  always  be  right ;  but  right  or  wrong,  may  she  always  be  vic- 
torious !"  is  unsustainable  on  any  principle  of  sound  morals,  and 
is  at  war  with  Christian  duty.  It  would  be  admirable  morality 
in  a  pagan  warrior^  and  would  even  hav  been  quite  in  keeping 
with  the  casuistry  of  the  middle  ages,  and  the  martial  religion 
of  the  crusaders.  Such  a  sentiment,  however,  is  uterly  irrecon- 
cilable with  a  proper  sense  of  justice,  much  more  of  religion. 
That  which  we  ar  justify'd  in  desiring,  we  hav  aright  to  pray 
for;  but  would  any  man  be  justify'd  in  praying  that  his  father  or 
mother,  his  child  or  best  friend  should  succeed  in  an  unjust  law 
suit?  If  he  knew  that  his  son  or  brother  had  gone  out  to  fight 
in  single  combat,  a  man  whom  he  had  insulted  and  injur'd, 
would  he  dare  to  offer  up  the  impious  prayer,  that  the  wrong 
doer  might  slay  his  adversary]  The  only  prayer  which  the 
Christian  could  dare  to  make,  would  be,  that  the  duel  might  be 
prevented,  or  if  inevitable,  that  both  might  escape  unhurt,  and 
become  sincere  penitents  for  their  guilt  and  folly.  I  do  not  un- 
derstand that  morality,  if  morality  it  may  be  calld,  which  jus- 
tifys  in  a  nation,  deeds  of  fraud  and  violence,  that,  in  a  private 
man,  would  excite  abhorrence,  and  call  down  summary  and  ter- 
rible vengeance.  A  multitude,  calling  themselves  a  nation,  or 
represented  by  a  government,  cannot  authorise  that  which  is  im- 
pious or  unjust  in  the  individuals.  I  know  of  no  distinction  be- 
tween national  and  individual  morality;  but  this,  that  the  latter 
is  the  only  true  basis  of  the  former:  and  that  this  actualy  is  of  a 
more  dignify'd  solemn  and  important  character  than  that.  The 
morality  of  a  public  man,  should  ever  be  of  a  sublimer  cast,  of 
holier  obligation,  than  that  of  the  citizen;  because,  though  the 
principle  of  duty  be  the  same,  the  elevated  station,  the  com- 
manding authority,  the  comprehensiv  influence  and  varyd  rela- 
tions of  the  former,  make  his  virtues  incomparably  more  valu- 
able, his  vices  incomparably  more  perilous. 


200 

on  behalf  of  the  avenger  of  private  insults  or  injurys,  be 
mockery  and  blasphemy !  Now,  what  sensible,  practical 
difference  is  there  between  the  prayer,  that  an  injur'd  and 
insulted  father  or  husband  might  disable  or  slay  his  adver- 
sary, and  the  prayer  that  an  army  of  a  wrong'd  and  dis- 
honour'd  people  might  prosper  in  its  work  of  wounds  and 
death,  in  scattering  and  destroying  its  enemys  ?  Can  the 
Christian  minister  return  thanks  to  God,  that,  the  father  and 
the  husband  hav  mangled  or  slain  in  a  duel  the  seducer  of 
his  daughter  and  his  wife  ?  How  then,  can  he  offer  the 
prayer  of  thanksgiving  to  God,  in  the  name  and  thro'  the 
mediation  of  Jesus,  that  fleets  and  armys,  hav  aveng'd  by 
the  slaughter  of  thousands,  wrongs  and  insults,  vastly  infe- 
rior? How  can  the  Christian  intercede  or  return  thanks, 
for  the  success  of  those,  who  instead  of  requiting  evil  with 
good,  and  cursing  with  blessing,  go  forth  to  inflict  evil  for 
evil,  and  curs  for  curs ;  by  destroying  thousands  of  lives 
and  millions  of  property;  and  by  turning  the  sweet  fountains 
of  ten  thousand  innocent  homes,  into  the  bitter  waters  of 
poverty  and  affliction?     Hav  they  not  thus  drawn   a 

DISTINCTION,    WHICH     CHRIST    AND     HIS    APOSTLES    NEVER 

drew  1  Let  me  then  beseech  the  clergy  and  all  Christians, 
to  think  well  of  these  things  !  O  that  they  would  bear  with 
me,  meekly  and  attentivly,  whilst  I  expostulate  with  them 
and  remonstrate,  in  no  spirit  of  disrespect  or  uncharitable- 
ness ! — Oh  !  that,  instead  of  being  offended  at  my  freedom 
of  speech,  they  would  bring  their  sentiments  and  conduct,  as 
individuals  and  as  a  body,  to  the  test  of  the  gospel,  of  prayer 
and  of  faith  ! 

Let  me  now  retrace  my  steps,  and  then  proceed  with  the 
argument — I  hav  said,  that  the  military  constitution  of  so- 
ciety and  government,  or  of  the  latter  only,  hav  been  the 
cause  of  war ;  that  the  wishes  and  interests  of  the  people, 
whether  ignorant  or  enlightend,  ar  hostil  to  war ;  that  the 


201 

great  remedy  for  war  is  to  giv  to  these  interests,  a  control  - 
ing  influence  over  public  affairs ;  that,  in  educated  commu- 
nitys  there  is  little  difficulty,  but  in  a  country,  where  the  peo- 
ple ar  ignorant,  there  is  great  difficulty,  in  embodying  po- 
pular influence,  wisely  and  safely  and  effectualy  in  such 
forms  of  government,  as  to  subject  rulers  to  the  popular  will. 
I  hav  said,  moreover,  that  education  was  the  great  instru- 
ment of  moral  revolution,  with  ignorant  communitys,  that 
this  should  be  the  chief  means  of  the  friends  of  peace,  in  all 
such  countrys  :  that  education  ought  to  be  decidedly  Chris- 
tian, and  to  be  such,  must  be  decidedly  peaceful:  that  the 
principles  and  practices  of  war  and  warriors,  ar  uterly  in- 
admissible in  such  a  system,  because  irreconcilable  with  it : 
that  authors,  imbued  with  the  spirit  of  war  and  abounding  in 
military  narrativ,  were  enemys  to  the  religion  and  education 
of  peace :  that  Greek  and  Roman  chiefs  and  the  heroic  vir- 
tues of  classic  heathenism  were  the  enemys  of  Christ  and  of 
Christian  perfections.  I  hav  ventured  to  say,  that  Chris- 
tians and  the  Christian  ministry  ar  deeply  to  be  condemn'd 
for  the  part  which  they  hav  acted  on  the  great  subject  of 
peace  and  war :  that  their  compromise  with  the  warrior  and 
his  trade  of  bloodshed  and  rapine,  has  done  incalculable 
mischief  to  the  cause  of  religion,  liberty,  education  and 
peace. 

Let  us  now  resume  our  argument — the  clergy  in  Chris- 
tian countrys  hav  always  exercis'd  a  great  and  extensiv  influ- 
ence over  education.  But  their  influence  has  never  been 
exerted  deeply,  comprehensibly,  decidedly,  in  favor  of 
peace.  Not  only  hav  they  tolerated  war  among  nations ; 
but  they  hav  made  the  warrior,  with  his  art  and  his  glory,  in 
all  the  attractiv  forms  of  eloquence,  of  poetry,  of  history  and 
biography,  the  daily  companion  of  youth.  Not  only,  by  the 
books  which  they  hav  selected,  but  by  the  perseverance  and 
enthusiasm  with  which  they  hav  explaind  and  commended 


202 

them,  as  the  master- works  of  the  human  mind,  the  clergy  hav 
taught  practicaly,  that  Christian  virtues  are  mean  and 
worthless,  in  comparison  of  heroic  virtues.  And  yet,  if  a 
Christian  minister  hav  in  him  the  spirit  of  the  meek  and 
lowly  Jesus,  and  make  the  sermon  on  the  mount,  and  the 
gospel  of  John,  his  text  book  of  morals,  can  he  believ  that 
the  disciple,  whom  Jesus  lovd,  would  hav  chosen  war  and 
the  warrior,  in  so  many  fascinating  forms,  as  the  compa- 
nions of  youth?  Is  it  possible  that  such  a  clergyman  can.( 
believ  the  spirit  and  example  of  Csesar  and  Agricola,  of  Ro- 
man kings  and  consuls,  of  the  heros  in  Virgil  and  Homer, 
not  unfriendly  to  Christian  morals  1  Can  he  believ  that  an 
apostle  would  ever  hav  written  such  books  for  the  instruc- 
tion of  j^outh  ?  or  would  hav  adopted  them  into  his  scheme 
of  education  ?  If  it  be  denyd  that  the  spirit  of  such  works 
is  decidedly  martial  and  the  leading  characters  warriors,  I 
can  only  be  silent  from  astonishment.*     But  if  this  be  con- 

*  Hobbes  professd  to  hav  translated  Thucydides,  principal y 
with  a  view  to  expose  the  follys  of  a  democracy.  What  the 
history  of  Thucydides  is,  and  what  the  character  of  the  Pelopone- 
sian  war  and  of  the  Grecian  States,  may  be  judgd  from  what  Gray 
says  (2d.  vol.  Connect,  p.  126)  that  the  war  arose  from  an  inconsi- 
derable commencement,  originating  in  a  dispute  between  Cor- 
cyra  and  Corinth  about  Epidamnus,  and,  drawing  in  all  the  pow- 
erful states  of  Greece,  terminated  in  the  ruin  of  Athens.  The 
conduct  of  the  different  nations,  when  palliated  or  extolld  by  the 
historian,  affords  few  proofs  of  moderation  or  equity,  (p.  128.) 
The  aggrandizement  (of  the  Athenians)  and  the  gratification  of 
(their)  revenge,  constitute  prominent  subjects  of  his  (Pericles,) 
praise,  in  an  eloquent  oration  to  the  memory  of  those  who  pe- 
rishd  in  the  first  campaign  (128.)  Demosthenes  in  his  oration 
on  the  crown,  speaking  of  the  Athenians,  describes  precisely 
the  spirit,  which  as  Gray  confesses,  (p.  185)  "was  calculated 
to  in  vol  v  them  in  eternal  warfare,  and  violation  of  justice  to~ 
wards  others"    "  Their  whole  history"  says  the  orator,  "  was 


203 

ceded,  can  it  then  be  denyd  that  they  must  be  unfavorable  to 
the  pure,  meek,  humble  spirit  of  Christianity?     Such  books 

a  series  of  noble  contests  for  preeminence,  the  whole  period  of 
their  existence  having  been  spent  in  braving  dangers  for  the 
sake  of  glory  and  renown"  Not  satisfy'd  with  the  mere  narra- 
tiv  of  wars,  and  battels,  and  sieges,  Arrian  professes  tohav  writ- 
ten the  history  of  Alexander's  expedition,  by  divine  assistance  : 
and  Dion  Cassius,  as  to  his  narrativ,  professes  to  hav  been  ex- 
cited to  its  composition  by  a  divine  dream :  whilst  Alexander 
himself  professd  during  the  siege  of  Tyre,  to  hav  receivd  pro- 
mises of  divine  assistance.  It  is  impossible  to  disguise,  much 
less  to  deny,  the  fact  that  without  the  wars  and  warriors  of 
Greece  and  Rome,  their  history,  so  extensiv,  dazzling  and  en- 
tertaining, would  be  like  Satan  transformd  in  Pandemonium. 

"  His  visage  drawn  he  felt  to  sharp  and  spare, 
His  arms  clung  to  his  ribs,  his  legs  intwining 
Each  other  ;  till  supplanted  down  he  fell.'! 

and  "the  shape,  star-bright  of  the  most  proud  and  powerful  of 
fallen  angels,  appear'd  a  hideous,  loathsome  serpent.  The  his- 
tory of  Greece  and  Rome  is  in  no  proper  sense  the  history  of  so- 
ciety. Even  as  the  history  of  states,  it  is  chiefly  the  political 
biography  of  hundreds  of  warriors,  triumphant  in  a  long  succes- 
sion of  ages,  by  all  the  vile  and  atrociou  s  arts  of  violence,  fraud, 
cruelty  and  ambition.  Is  the  spirit  of  such  books  salutary  to 
Christian  youth  ?  Can  it  be  otherwise  than  hostil  to  the  mild 
and  holy  influences  of  love,  peace,  humility,  purity1?  We  should 
be  equaly  consistent  in  principle,  were  we  to  select  as  text 
books  of  education,  biographys  of  the  duelist  and  assassin,  and 
of  the  dexterous  in  crime,  cunning  and  falsehood.  The  lesson 
which  all  ancient  history  teaches,  is  this  : 

"  Not  with  the  burial  of  the  sword  this  strife 
Must  end,  but  of  the  warrior.     Never  thrives 
The  tree  of  Peace,  till  planted  by  the  brave 
Upon  his  Enemy  and  Grave.     Peace-loving  fools 
Fly  hence  !" > 

It  is  one  of  the  blessings  of  this  country,  that  classical  educa- 
tion has  ever  been  so  imperfect  as  to  produce  comparativly 


204 

were  written,  it  must  be  granted,  in  the  spirit  of  war,  with- 
out  a  doubt  on  the  writer's  mind  of  its  lawfulness.  Shall  I 
be  told  that,  the  spirit  and  object  of  the  writer,  hav  no  in- 
fluence on  the  minds  of  youth  ?  If  they  hav  none,  the  wri- 
ter is  not  worth  studying.  Genius  and  taste,  style  and 
thought  ar  wasted,  if  they  leav  not  decided  and  durable 
impressions  on  the  hearts  and  understandings  of  youth,  and 
do  not  exercise  a  commanding  influence  in  the  formation  of 
character.  But  the  advocates  of  such  works  actualy  extol 
them ;  because  they  do  exercise  a  great  influence  over  the 
faculty s  and  afections ;  and  the  insensibility  of  Christians, 

speaking  but  little  mischief  on  this  score;  for  it  cannot  be  doubt- 
ed by  all  who  ar  conversant  with  the  subject,  that  not  one  in  a 
thousand  of  those  who  learn  Latin  and  Greek,  imbibe  the  spirit 
of  ancient  literature.  May  it  ever  be  so,  for  I  regard  that  spirit 
as  decidedly  hostil  in  the  young,  to  the  genius,  influence  and 
progress  of  Christianity.  What  the  tru  character  of  that  influ- 
ence is,  may  be  seen  most  faithfuly  and  eloquently  depicted  in 
the  Diary  of  a  Physician,  vol.  i.  p.  51  and  174 ;  in  "  A  Scholar's 
Death  Bed,"  and  "  A  Man  about  Town."  The  former  is  a  most 
natural  and  afecting  picture  of  the  infidel  classical  scholar,  the 
latter  a  striking  and  awful  portrait  of  the  blasphemous ,  dissolute 
and  reckless  classical  scholar.  They  ar  solemn  warnings  of  the 
genuin  influence  of  the  classics,  when  exercis'd  over  the  mind, 
heart  and  character  of  youth,  unrestrain'd  by  Christianity.  The 
same  influence  is  exerted,  in  a  greater  or  less  degree,  on  all  our 
youth.  Is  it  not  then  a  solemn  question  for  Christians,  and  es- 
pecialy  for  the  Christian  clergy,  whether  our  semi-Pagan,  semi- 
Christian  state  of  society,  in  religion  and  morality,  and  in  the 
actual  condition  of  the  conscience  and  afections,  be  not  ascriba- 
Tfle  to  the  unchristian  character,  and  of  course  to  a  greater  or 
less  extent ;  in  evry  case,  to  the  unchristian  influence  of  the 
classics.  The  " Scholar,"  and  the  "Man  about  Town,"  ar 
the  natural  legitimate  fruits  of  the  doctrines,  morals  and  litera- 
ture of  the  classics.  They  never  could  hav  been  such  of  the 
doctrins,  morals  and  literature  of  the  Bible. 


205 

and  above  all,  of  the  Christian  clergy  to  their  unfriendly 
efects  on  Christian  morals,  is  the  highest  proof  that  can  be 
given  of  their  pernicious  tendency.  Assuredly,  when  the 
servants  of  the  Prince  of  Peace  are  the  eulogists  of  war  and 
warriors,  and  welcome  their  influence  to  the  bosoms  of 
youth  in  so  many  attractiv  shapes,  we  must  acknowlege, 
with  grief  and  surprise,  that  they  ar  themselvs  enslav'd  by 
the  same  spirit. 

There  was  a  time,  when,  for  ages,  the  clergy  were  absolute 
masters  of  all  education.  Oh  !  that  they  had  then  been  faith- 
ful to  the  great  trust  committed  to  them  !  Had  they  construct- 
ed all  their  schemes  on  the  principles  of  peace,  and  devoted 
the  immens  revenues  of  the  church  to  the  general  educa- 
tion of  the  people,  in  the  spirit  of  peace,  they  would,  indeed, 
hav  been  among  mortals,  the  most  signal  and  ilustrious  of 
the  benefactors  of  mankind.  But  they  saw  not,  or  disre- 
garded the  dangerous  influences  of  war  in  education,  and  the 
truth,  beauty,  and  power  of  the  principles  of  peace.  Ages 
rolld  away ;  the  reformation  came ;  the  clergy  acquir'd  a  new 
and  higher  power  than  that  of  priestly  authority,  the  power 
of  knowlege  and  talents,  of  virtue  and  piety,  acting  on  free 
and  enlightend  consciences.  Yet,  still  the  clergy  appeard 
insensible  of  this  high  and  solemn  duty,  to  exclude  the  in- 
fluences of  war  from  their  schemes  of  education,  and  to  sub. 
stitute  humility  and  love,  purity  and  holiness,  and  all  the 
influences  of  peace.  Three  hundred  years  hav  glided  away, 
and  still  Christians,  and  the  clergy  are  nominaly  on  the  side 
of  peace,  practicaly  on  the  side  of  war,  in  all  their  systems 
of  education.  And  yet  the  cause  of  peace  can  never  triumph, 
until  the  Christian  clergy,  individualy,  and  as  a  body,  shall 
condemn  universaly  and  unconditionaly,  war,  and  the  war- 
rior in  evry  form,  as  they  hav  condemn'd  private  violence 
and  the  duelist.  Nor  can  the  spirit  of  peace  ever  be  the 
leading  characteristic  and  vital  principle  of  education,  until 

S 


206 

Christians  and  the  clergy  shall,  in  like  manner,  as  far  as  de- 
pends on  them,  substitute  Christian  for  heathen  education, 
and  the  Christian  perfections  of  humility,  forbearance,  love, 
and  forgivness,   for   the  heathen   virtues  of  pride,  hatred 
of  enemys,  and  revenge,  inseparable  from  the  classic  poets 
and   historians.     Peace  can  never  triumph,  till  education, 
in  all  its  departments,  shall  teach  youth,  that  those  which 
ar  calld  heroic  virtues,  ar  expressly  prohibited  by  Christ, 
both  in  precept  and  example;  that  the  only  warrior,  if  I 
may  venture  the  term,  whom  Christ  acknowleges,  is  the 
Martyr,  laying  down  property,  liberty,  and  life,  in  his  cause ; 
but  resolute  not  to  bear  arms  in  defence  of  them,  or  in  vindi- 
cation of  his  master's  rights.    Peace  can  never  triumph,  until 
children  shall  be  universaly  taught,  theoreticaly  and  prac- 
ticaly,  that  a  peasant,  with  a  Christian  spirit,  is  a  nobler  and 
a  lovelier  object  to  angels,  than  Caesar  or  Alexander,  Charles 
the  twelfth  or  Napoleon.     Peace  can  never  be  the  ruling 
spirit  of  Christian  countrys,  until  the  Christian  ministry,  and 
professing  Christians  shall  acknowlege  and  teach,  boldly  and 
invariably,  that  even  a  slave,  if  the  meek,  pure,  humble  dis- 
ciple of  Jesus,  is  more  precious  in  the  sight  of  God,  than  the 
most  ilustrious  of  orators,  or  historians,    or   poets,   when 
adorn'd  only  with  the  heroic  virtues  of  Greece  and  Rome. 
How  hard  is  it  to  convince  Christians  of  these  things  !  How 
hard  to  bring  them  to  act  on  the  broad,  simple,  uncompro- 
mising precepts  of  the  gospel !  How  next  to  impossible  does 
it  seem  for  them  to  regulate  their  thoughts,  words,  and  deeds, 
and  all  the  influences  they  ar  perpetualy  exerting  over  others, 
by  the  purifying  love  and  self-sacrificing  humility  of  the  gos- 
pel !  War  has  sworn  on  the  altar  of  human  victims,  eternal 
enmity  to  that  love  and  humility,  yet  Christians  and  the  holy 
ministry  of  peace,  love,  and  humility,  not  only  justify  war, 
and  the  warrior,  but  scatter  their  influence  with  a  prodigal 


207 

hand  and  perpetuate  them  with  emulous  enthusiasm,  in  all 
the  forms  of  education. 

How  insensible  hav  Christians,  and  abov  all  the  Chris- 
tian clergy,  appeard  to  one  sublime,  remarkable  truth;  a 
truth  so  obvious,  so  important,  that  its  rejection  by  all  Chris- 
tendom is  equaly  astonishing  and  lamentable.  That  truth 
is,  that,  in  the  mysterious  providence  of  God,  the  law  of 
violence  and  retaliation  was  universaly  tolerated  and  often 
directly  employ d  by  God  himself  in  his  moral  government 
of  the  world*  until  the  advent  of  the  Prince  of  Peace  ; 

*  Perhaps  the  question  may  be  askd,  why  ar  not  the  his- 
torical books  of  the  Old  Testament  equaly  condemn'd  with  Greek 
and  Roman  history]  The  answer  is  obvious.  1st,  They  ar  ac- 
tualy  inspired  books,  and  to  read  them  as  a  part  of  revelation,  is 
a  duty  of  evry  believer.  2d,  They  exhibit  wars,  for  the  most 
part,  as  actual  manifestations  of  the  power,  actual  vindications 
of  the  authority,  and  actual  proofs  of  the  justice  and  righteous 
vengeance  of  God.  3d,  They  contain  none  of  the  fascinations, 
none  of  the  deep  interest,  none  of  the  poetical  and  oratorical  co- 
lorings so  prodigaly  bestowd  on  the  Grecian  and  Roman  historys. 
The  sacred  historians  giv  the  simple,  naked  truth.  Their  object 
is  not  to  commend  the  warrior ;  to  extol  his  glory,  to  kindle  admi- 
ration and  emulation  of  his  achievments.  But  this  is  the  very 
end  of  classic  story,  the  very  soul  of  all  the  historical  composi- 
tions of  Greece  and  Rome.  It  is  tru,  that  Olaus  Magnus,  in  his 
Gothic  vision  of  the  Scriptures,  omitted  the  books  of  Kings;  lest, 
as  he  said,  they  should  cherish  the  warlike  spirit  of  his  country- 
men. But  to  say  nothing  of  this  sacrilege,  is  it  not  obvious,  that 
he  misunderstood  the  character  and  influence  of  the  entire  body 
of  the  sacred  writings.  The  study  of  the  Bible  has  nothing  to 
do  with  the  study  of  war  and  its  arts,  but  the  study  of  the  classics 
draws  along  with  it  inseparably  the  study  of  the  martial  history, 
biography,  and  mythology  of  Greece  and  Rome.  The  law  of 
violence  and  fraud  is  stampd  upon  evry  page.  The  kingdom 
of  the  warrior  is  universal  there.  The  reign  of  terror  is  evry 
where  seen:  and,  as  in  the  Acropolis  of  Athens,  so  here,  the 


208 

BUT  FROM  THAT  MOMENT  THE  LAW  OF  INDIVIDUAL  AND 
SOCIAL  MORALS,  WAS  ABSOLUTELY  AND    FOREVER    CHANG'd. 

Nor  is  this  contrast  surprising,  when  we  compare  the  Jewish 
and  Christian  dispensations.  The  Mosaic  institutes,  were  a 
vast  and  complex  scheme  of  national  morals  and  social  dutys, 
of  civil  and  political  administration,  of  religious  rites  and 
ecclesiastical  arrangements,  of  sacrifices  and  ceremonys, 
costly  and  magnificent,  various,  complicated,  and  minute. 
It  was  the  system  of  a  nation  and  a  government,  with  a  rich 
and  splendid  national  church.  But  Christianity  was  a  scheme, 
the  very  opposite  of  all  this ;  for  its  influence  was  altogether 
individual  and  social:  its  worship  was  simple  and  spiritual; 
its  founders  and  rulers,  the  poor  and  humble.  Its  character 
as  a  church,  was  universal ;  its  prominent  virtues  were  hu- 
mility and  self-sacrifice,  forgivness  of  enemys,  and  love  to 
all  mankind.  Hence  the  law  of  violence  and  retaliation, 
was  for  ever  abolishd :  and  the  law  of  peace  and  love,  of 
humility,  forbearance,  forgivness,  irrevocably  ordaind  in 
its  stead.  Yet  the  general  tenor  of  the  precepts  of  Christians, 
and  the  general  spirit  of  their  schemes  of  government  and 
education,  hav  utterly  denyd  that  the  law  of  violence  and 
retaliation  is  forever  abolishd,  as  the  great  law  for  individuals, 
communitys  and  governments.  The  Jews  rejected  the  meek 
and  humble  Jesus,  expecting  a  conquering  Messiah;  and  they 
were  animated  and  sustain d  in  the  ruinous  war  against  Ves- 
pasian and  Titus,  by  their  misconstruction  of  the  prophecys 
respecting  the  Messiah.  And  hav  not  Christians,  whilst 
acknowleging  the  meek  and  humble  Jesus  as  their  Messiah, 
practicaly  rejected  him  by  denying  the  authority  of  his 
precepts,  and  disregarding  the  beauty  of  his  example?   Hav 

images  of  false  and  cruel  gods,  and  of  the  most  reckles  and  ra- 
pacious of  all  destroyers,  the  warrior,  ar  crowded  together,  and 
ar  continualy  passing  before  the  eye,  with  fearful  rapidity  and 
imposing  splendor. 


209 

not  Christians  actualy  governd  themselves  and  their  com- 
munitys,  as  the-'  the  god  of  war,  or  the  martial  prophet  of 
Mecca,  not  the  Prince  of  Peace,  was  their  Messiah  ?  Hav 
they  not  as  individuals,  as  subjects,  and  as  rulers,  acted  as 
tho'  they  did  not  doubt  that  the  Christian  bore  the  character 
of  the  Jewish  Messiah  1  And  that  they  had  a  right  in  his  name 
and  by  his  authority,  to  suspend  the  law  of  peace,  humility, 
and  iove,  and  to  re-establish  the  law  of  retaliation  and  vio- 
lence ?  The  domestic  and  international  history  of  Christian 
countrys,  on  the  great  subject  of  peace  and  war,  is  undeniably 
the  history  of  Heathen  communitys.  With  some  few  excep- 
tions in  the  mode  of  warfare,  and  the  treatment  of  prisoners, 
the  wars  of  Christian  nations  are  not  distinguishable  from 
those  of  the  Pagan,  in  their  origin,  conduct,  and  termination. 
The  reason  is  manifest.  War  in  any  shape,  from  any  mo- 
iiv,  and  carrtfd  on  in  any  mode,  is  uterly  indefensible  on 
Christian  principles,  and  uterly  irreconcilable  with  a 
Christian  spirit.  When  will  the  disciples,  and  abov  all, 
the  ministers  of  the  Prince  of  Peace,  acknowlege  in  theory 
and  practice,  this  great  and  solemn  truth  1  When  will  they 
admit,  that  God  is  wiser  than  man,  and  knows  best  the  prin- 
ciples, upon  which  his  moral  government  ought  to  be  ad- 
ministerd  among  men? 

There  was  a  time,  when  the  distinguishing  mark  of  Chris- 
tians was,  that  they  would  not  bear  arms.  But,  for  more 
than  sixteen  hundred  years,  peace  has  been  the  lost  Pleiad, 
in  the  constelation  of  Christian  virtues.  From  the  com- 
mencement of  the  history  of  Christian  nations  and  govern- 
ments, they  hav  ceas'd  to  bear  that  mark,  and  more  than 
sixteen  centurys  hav  recorded  their  inextinguishable  wars. 
O !  that  Christians  had  persever'd  in  the  primitiv  spirit, 
which  regarded  the  character  of  a  soldier  as  pagan,  not 
Christian  !  O  !  that  they  had  abided  inflexibly  by  the  rule, 
never  to  bear  arms  !  Then  would  the  primitiv  church  hav 
s2 


210 

bequeathe!  an  iiustrious,  invaluable  example  to  all  posterity. 
Then  pagan,  not  Christian  governments,  would  hav  been 
overturnd.  Then  the  northern  invaders,  after  conquering 
the  monarchs  and  armys  of  heathenism,  would  themselvs 
hav  been  subdud  and  civiliz'd  by  the  all -prevailing  law  of 
Christian  peace  and  love.  But,  unfortunately,  Christianity 
was  first  enslav'd  by  the  warlike  character  of  classic  pagan- 
ism, and  afterward  by  the  martial  spirit  of  the  barbarous 
heathen.  Had  its  disciples  inflexibly  resisted  the  first,  they 
never  would  hav  dishonord  their  Founder  and  his  church 
by  the  last. 

Their  maxims,  from  the  moment  the  Redeemer  ascended, 
should  hav  been  these,  "  Let  the  heathen  take  arms  against 
each'  other  and  even  against  us,  but  come  what  may,  Chris- 
tians never  will  bear  arms  against  each  other,  or  against 
them.  Christianity  never  shall  be  defended  or  spread  abroad 
by  force  of  arms.*  Christians  never  shall  employ  the  sword 

*  It  appears  exceedingly  strange,  that  any  one  should  ever  hav 
imagind  that  he  had  a  right  to  propagate  Christianity  by  force 
of  arms.  Yet  this  was  practicaly  the  sentiment  of  Christians 
from  the  time  the  church  became  a  national  establishment, 
indentifyd  with  the  state  ;  and  partaking  of  the  military  charac- 
ter of  the  government.  Indeed,  the  conclusion  seems  irresisti- 
ble ;  if  war  be  a  lawful  instrument  to  compel  others  to  do  their 
duty  to  Christians,  it  would  be  still  more  lawful  when  used  to 
compel  them  to  do  their  duty  to  themselvs,  by  embracing 
Christianity.  If  it  were  a  righteous  means,  on  the  successful 
employment  of  which,  the  blessing  of  God  might  be  askd,  when 
the  object  was  merely  a  subordinate  temporal  good,  still  less 
doubt  could  be  felt,  when  the  object  was  supreme  in  importance 
and  endless  in  duration.  This  capital  error  in  Christian  morality, 
that  war  was  lawful  to  avenge  injurys,  to  compel  satisfaction, 
and  to  constrain  the  Heathen  to  believ,  has  been  the  source  of 
countless  millions  of  crimes  and  vices,  and  of  corruption,  cala- 
mity and  suffering,  unexampled  in  the  history  of  man.  To  those 


211 

to  protect  property,  character,  liberty,  or  life.  Let  the  hea- 
then rule  us  with  a  rod  of  iron.  Let  them  insult,  persecute, 
oppress,  torment,  slay  us.  Let  them  confiscate  property, 
slander  character,  cast  us  into  prison,  strip  us  of  life  itself. 
Let  them  separate  husband  and  wife,  parent  and  child ;  let 
them  seduce  the  brother  to  betray  the  brother,  and  the  friend 
the  friend.  Let  them  poison  the  comfort  and  happiness  of 
private  and  social  life :  and  heap  on  us  all  the  enormitys  and 

who  believ  in  the  perfect  law  of  love,  and  still  more  to  those  who 
feel  its  controling  power  in  their  hearts,  how  awful  and  afecting 
is  such  a  spectacle.  Instead  of  the  sanctuary,  behold  the  battel- 
field.  Instead  of  an  assembly  of  saints,  pure  in  heart,  fervent 
in  prayer,  meek  in  spirit,  behold  an  army  of  warriors,  already 
the  slayers  of  tens  of  thousands  of  their  fellow  men,  and  traind 
to  destroy,  without  remorse  or  pity,  all  who  resist  them.  And 
yet  their  victims  are  the  children  of  the  same  Universal  Father; 
the  very  battel-field  is  the  Temple  of  the  living'  God:  they  them- 
selvs  ar  his  servants:  the  very  winds  which  waft  to  his  throne 
the  shock  of  battel  and  the  shrieks  of  the  wounded,  ar  the 
messengers  commissiond  to  bear  on  wings  of  love  the  hymn  of 
prais,  and  the  prayer  of  penitence.  And  when  Christians  hav 
slaughterd  those  who  would  not  believ  the  truth  of  a  religion, 
whose  votarys  are  capable  of  such  atrocitys,  behold 


-In  the  moment  of  our  victory 


"  We  purified  our  hands  from  blood,  and  knelt 

"  And  pour'd  to  heaven  the  grateful  prayer  of  praise, 

"  And  raised  the  choral  psalm ." 

Phocion  was  condemnd  to  die  on  the  da}'  sacred  to  the  festi- 
val of  Jove;  and  as  the  procession  passd  by  the  prison,  they 
wept,  and  took  from  their  heads  the  crowns  of  rejoicing,  be- 
cause to  them  such  a  day  seemed  too  holy  for  the  cruel  deeds 
of  the  executioner.  And  yet  Christians  turn  even  the  Sabbath 
into  a  day  of  battel,  and  shed,  not  their  own  tears  of  penitence, 
but  the  blood  of  their  fellow  men,  as  an  acceptable  offering  from 
his  servants  to  the  Prince  of  Peace,  love  and  humility. 


212 

crueltys,  that  malice  can  suggest  and  tyrany  execute.  Still, 
we  will  bear  it  all ;  nor  shall  the  sword  ever  be  employd  to 
deliver,  much  less  to  avenge  us.  Be  it  our  duty,  to  exhibit 
the  consistency  and  beauty,  the  unconquerable  strength,  the 
inflexible  constancy  of  Christian  love,  humility  and  forgiv- 
ness.  Cost  what  it  may,  we  will  return  good  for  evil,  and 
blessing  for  cursing :  We  will  love  them  that  hate  us,  and 
pray  for  such  as  persecute  and  oppress  us.  Thus  and  thus 
only  will  we  conquer  our  enemys,  and  convert  the  heathen 
to  Christianity."  Then  would  they  indeed  hav  conquerd, 
for  the  law  of  love  and  humility  and  forgivness  is  invincible 
in  the  hands  of  faith  and  hope.  Thus  would  the  whole 
Roman  empire,  and  all  the  barbarian  hordes  that  overran  it, 
hav  been  subdu'd  by  the  pure  and  holy  religion  of  peace ; 
not  by  that  misnam'd  Christian  church  with  the  warrior's 
helmet  on  her  head,  with  his  sword  in  her  right  hand,  and  a 
bloody  cross  in  the  left,  as  her  battel  ensign. 

For  ages  the  church  was  indeed  a  warrior,  and  resembled 
the  Marphisa  of  poetical  chivalry,  not  the  Bride  of  the  Lamb, 
meek,  humble  and  resign'd.  Her  prelates,  in  glittering  ar- 
mor, were  seen  on  the  war  steed,  brandishing  the  iron  mace 
of  the  pagan  Alamar ;  while  they  shrunk  from  the  Christian 
sword  of  Tancred  or  Gonzalvo.  Century  after  century 
elaps'd,  and  at  length  the  church  laid  aside  her  sword  and 
shield ;  and  her  clergy  withdrew  from  the  camp  and  the 
battel-field ;  but  Christian  rulers  and  communitys  still  wag'd 
war,  and  all  their  institutions  were  still  imbu'd  with  its 
spirit.  Such,  substantialy,  is  still  the  fact ;  and  such  it  must 
remain,  till  professing  Christians,  and  especialy  the  clergy, 
shall  abjure  their  compromise  with  war  and  the  warrior  ; 
and  banish  their  influence,  as  far  as  depends  on  them,  abso- 
lutely and  forever  from  the  education  of  Christian  youth. 
The  dawn  of  that  day,  I  fear,  is  still  far  distant  in  the  Chris- 
tendom of  Europe.     O !  that  its  morning  star  were  now 


213 

shining,  in  the  purity  and  beauty  of  gospel  truth,  on  the 
hearts  of  the  clergy  of  my  own,  my  belovd  country !  O  ! 
that  that  clergy  would  realize,  in  the  spirit  of  faith  and 
hope,  that  the  reign  of  the  Prince  of  Peace  can  never  com- 
mence, till  the  chosen  messengers  of  his  love,  shall  abjure 
forever,  all  alegiance  to  war  and  the  warrior,  and  teach  uni- 
versaly  and  intrepidly,  that,  humility  and  love,  forbearance 
and  forgivness,  ar  the  great,  the  indispensable  elements  of 
Christian  morals  and  of  all  the  education  of  Christian  youth. 
O !  that  the  clergy  would  meditate  profoundly,  humbly, 
prayerfuly  on  these  things :  and  exhibit  the  first  fruits  of  the 
harvest  of  peace,  in  their  own  hearts  and  lives,  thro'out 
all  their  instructions  and  in  all  their  influence  on  educa- 
tion. 

How  insensible  hav  Christians  and  the  Christian  ministry 
been  to  the  inestimable  value  of  the  peace  principle !  How 
little  hav  they  realiz'd  its  truth,  power,  beauty !  And  yet, 
its  truth  is  attested  by  Jesus  himself:  its  power  is  exhibited 
in  the  invincible  authority  of  love,  when  contrasted  with  vio- 
lence and  hatred :  its  beauty  is  the  admiration  of  seraphs, 
and  the  very  archangels  delight  to  look  into  its  pure  and 
lovly  mysterys.  And  what  is  peace,  rightly  understood, 
but  heaven  upon  earth ;  a  heaven  in  each  bosom,  in  each 
community,  a  heaven  in  the  whole  world !  And  is  this  only 
a  beautiful  vision  of  the  imagination  ?  No ;  it  is  the  child  of 
heaven-kindled  hope,  of  heaven-strengthend  faith.  The  an- 
cient traveller,  over  the  desarts  of  Arabia,  without  pathway 
or  an  earthly  help,  was  guided,  as  the  mariner  over  the 
trackless  ocean,  with  unerring  precision,  from  oasis  to  palm 
grove  and  fountain,  by  the  celestial  aid  of  sun  and  stars. 
And  shall  not  love  and  humility,  and  all  the  Christian  vir- 
tues, the  greater  and  lesser  lights,  ordaind  to  rule  the  moral 
world,  lead  Christians  and  Christian  governments,  and 
Christian  communitys,  thro'  the  melancholy  wastes  of  war, 


214 

to  the  serene  and  beautiful  regions  of  Christian  universal 
peace  ? 

There  ar  those,  and  Christians  and  Christian  ministers  ar 
among  the  number,  who  believ  in  a  great  improvement  of 
man,  in  private,  social,  international  morals ;  yet  refuse  to 
believ,  that,  the  time  shall  ever  come  when  war  and  the 
warrior,  and  all  the  acts  of  public  and  private  fraud  and  vio- 
lence shall  hav  been  banishd  from  the  earth.  What  a  well- 
spring  of  gratitude  to  God,  of  love  to  man,  of  self-enjoyment, 
do  such  persons  shut  up  with  impious  hands  against  them- 
selves and  all  whom  they  influence !  Who  would  not  ex- 
change the  misgivings  and  the  gloom,  that  overhang  this 
sceptical  creed,  for  the  inflexible  faith,  the  ardent  hope,  the 
holy  rejoicing  of  him  who  doubts  not  for  a  moment  the  fu- 
ture reign  of  universal  peace  ?  The  astronomer  looks  beyond 
the  mists  and  rains,  the  clouds  and  storms,  which  obscure 
his  present  habitation ;  and  beholds  in  the  azure  depths,  the 
radiant  orbs  and  harmonious  movements  of  the  vast  system, 
the  reign  of  universal  peace.  He  beholds  with  the  natural 
ey,  that  deep  serene,  undisturbd  by  the  momentary  causes 
which  now  obscure  or  hide  it  from  his  view  :  and  in  the  faith 
and  with  the  hopes  of  mortal  philosophy  only,  he  doubts  not, 
could  he  ascend  thither,  that  he  should  behold  a  glory  and 
beauty  and  serenity,  never  realiz'd  in  his  present  habitation. 
Newton  fear'd  that  the  time  was  to  come  when  the  law  of 
gravitation  would  demand  the  remedial  intervention  of  the 
Creator,  to  re-establish  the  order  and  security  of  the  system. 
But  Laplace  has  demonstrated  that  no  such  exigency  shall 
ever  exist :  that  the  system  of  the  world  contains  in  itself  an 
all-sufficient,  self-restoring  power ;  and  that  even  the  very 
exceptions,  which  appear  as  deviations  from  the  general  rules 
of  celestial  mechanism,  ar,  in  truth,  but  subordinate  results 
of  those  universal  laws,  which  attest  the  invariable  con- 
formity of  experience  to  theory.     And  shall  not  the  Chris- 


215 

tian,  under  the  sanctions  of  a  higher  and  better  philosophy, 
look  beyond  the  clouds  and  darkness  that  now  deform  so- 
ciety, to  behold  with  a  calm  and  steadfast  faith,  the  glory 
and  beauty  of  that  future  paradise  of  mortal  man,  the  empire 
of  universal  peace?  And  shall  not  the  Christian,  neither 
deceiv'd  nor  misled  by  the  disturbing  influences  of  war  and 
violence,  feel  the  inflexible  assurance,  that  no  miraculous 
interposition  is  calld  for  to  reliev  society  from  the  crimes 
and  vices  which  derange  it,  and  degrade  mankind ;  but  that 
the  purifying,  healing,  ennobling  spirit  of  love,  is  able  of  it- 
self, to  work  out,  in  God's  appointed  time,  the  regeneration 
of  man,  and  the  triumph  of  universal  peace.  I  at  least  feel 
that  inflexible  assurance,  that  delightful  hope.  I  at  least 
can  say,  in  the  strong  confidence  of  faith,  I  believ  that  the 
time  is  to  come,  when  crimes  and  vices,  when  war  and  vio- 
lence shall  be  banishd  from  the  earth ;  and  moral  truth,  and 
beauty,  and  peace,  shall  make  the  wilderness  of  life,  the 
very  paradise  of  God — Yes  ! 


I  see  them  dawn, 


"  I  see  the  radiant  visions,  where  they  rise, 
"  More  lovely,  than  when  Lucifer  displays 
"  His  beaming  forehead  thro'  the  gates  of  morn, 
"  To  lead  the  train  of  Phoebus  and  the  spring !" 

Yes !  I  believ  that  the  time  is  to  come,  when  the  warrior, 
with  his  plume  and  his  casque  and  his  scimetar,  with  his 
martial  music  and  his  glittering  armor,  shall  be  seen  no  more 
forever :  when  the  implements  of  war,  of  evry  age  and  na- 
tion, shall  be  found  only  in  the  cabinets  of  the  curious,  or 
among  the  historical  memorials  of  the  antiquary :  when  not 
a  battel-ship  shall  crest  the  mountain  wave,  or  repose  beau- 
tiful and  majestic  on  the  tranquil  bosom  of  the  ocean :  when 
not  an  army  shall  wind  its  dragon  folds  over  hill  and  vally 
and  plain  :  when  the  castel  and  the  tower,  the  rampart  and 


216 

the  battelment  shall  be  leveld  with  the  ground,  and  the  orch- 
ard, the  garden  and  the  vinyard  shall  smile  over  their  graves  : 
when  not  a  fortifyd  town  shall  be  seen  on  the  face  of  the 
whole  earth,  and  evry  citadel  shall  be  dedicated  with  pecu- 
liar rites,  as  the  temple  of  Christian  peace  :  when  Alexander, 
Caesar  and  Napoleon,  shall  be  accounted  the  Molochs  of 
mankind  ;•  and  the  battel  fields  of  Arbela  and  Pharsalia,  of 
Marengo  and  Austerlitz,  the  polluted  shrines  of  a  sanguinary 
and  idolatrous  superstition  :  when  the  ilustrious  achievments 
of  the  most  renownd  of  conquerors  shall  be  rememberd  only 
with  astonishment,  indignation  and  mourning:  when  the 
master  works  of  military  science  shall  be  esteemd  as  mis- 
chievous and  wicked,  as  the  frauds  of  astrology  and  magic : 
and  the  Iliad  and  iEneid,  Csesar,  and  Livy,  and  Sallust,f 

*  The  profound  philosophy,  exalted  eloquence  and  Christian 
spirit,  display'd  by  Dr.  Channing,  in  his  review  of  the  talents, 
character  and  achievments  of  Napoleon,  +  entitle  him  to  the  gra- 
titude and  admiration  of  Americans,  indeed  of  all  mankind. 
They  ar  not  only  among  the  noblest  compositions  of  the  age, 
but  their  moral  beauty  and  dignity  ar  of  the  highest  order.  I 
regard  them  of  such  value,  that  I  would  rather  hav  American 
youth  deeply  imbued  with  the  spirit  and  sentiments  of  those 
two  essays,  than  with  all  that  is  to  be  gathered  from  Demos- 
thenes the  orator,  and  Tully  the  rhetorician.  I  should  rejoice 
to  see  them  taught  in  evry  college  in  the  union;  and  as  Cor- 
neille  had  the  Cid  in  his  library  translated  into  evry  language 
of  Europe  but  one,  so  should  I  rejoice  to  know  that  the  same 
were  the  lot  of  those  admirable  essays. 

f  This,  I  am  sensible,  will  be  regarded  by  some,  as  little  less 
than  folly,  by  others,  as  something  like  fanaticism.  But  for  my- 
self, I  know  that,  in  my  own  opinion  at  least,  I  speak  forth  the 
words  of  sobernes  and  truth.  I  do  verily  believ  that  the  time  is 
to  come,  when  such  books  will  form  no  part  of  the  education  of 
youth.     They  will  be  superseded  by  works,  altogether  superior 

i  Channing's  works,  p.  67,  135.  Christian  Examiner,  new  series,  1827.  vol.  4. 
p.  382,  1828,  vol.  5,  p.  185. 


217 

shall  never  deform  the  souls  of  Christian  youth :  when  the 
siege  and  the  battel,  and  the  naval  action,  and  all  the  machi- 
nery  Of  NATIONAL    MURDER    and   NATIONAL    ROBBERY,    by 

to  them  in  all  that  constitutes  the  real  dignity,  value,  and  beauty 
of  literature.  That  day,  I  fear,  is  yet  far  distant ;  for  the  litera- 
ture of  peace,  is  scarcely  even  born.  But  no  one  can  look  at 
the  signs  of  the  times,  and  not  see  that  there  is  a  spirit  abroad, 
which  promises  results  in  favor  of  religion,  education,  and  peace, 
more  truly  Christian,  than  the  world  has  ever  seen,  orevenima- 
gind.  The  contemplation  of  this  state  of  things,  compar'd  with 
the  history  of  mankind  hitherto,  strengthens  this  belief,  which 
originates  in  the  prophecys  of  Scripture,  and  is  sustaind  by  the 
pure  and  simple  character  of  Christianity.  I  do  not  in  the  least 
doubt,  that  the  whole  scheme  of  education  will  be  reformd  in 
Christian  countrys,  and  that  new  plans  will  be  adopted,  in  which 
Christian  duty  and  Christian  usefulnes,  love,  humility,  and  peace, 
will  be  at  once  the  means  and  end  of  education.  Now,  they 
ar  scarcely  discoverable  any  where,  amid  the  profusion  of  Pagan 
writers,  and  the  masses  of  mathematical  study,  so  entirely  un- 
connected with  the  true  objects  of  general  education. 

Whatever  may  hav  been  Milton's  judgment  as  a  scholar,  we 
happen  to  hav  what  is  better,  his  judgment  as  a  Christian,  as  to 
the  value  of  all  classical  literature.  Whether  he  expressd  his 
own  opinion  or  not,  is  immaterial.  He  has  given  us  his  expo- 
sition of  the  Savior's  opinion.  Let  any  one  read  the  remarkable 
sentence  of  excommunication,  against  the  philosophy,  poetry, 
oratory,  and  politics  of  Greece  and  Rome,  in  Paradise  Regaind: 
B.  4.  v.  285  to  v.  364,  and  say  if  he  can  doubt  a  moment  that 
our  Savior,  in  Milton's  judgment,  would  hav  rejected  them,  in  a 
seheme  of  education  for  Christian  youth.  Of  their  philosophy 
he  will  acknowlege, 

"  Who,  therefore,  seeks  in  these 
True  wisdom,  finds  her  not,  or  by  delusion 
Far  worse,  her  false  resemblance  only  meets, 
An  empty  cloud. " 

of  their  poetry  he  will  acknowlege, 

T 


218 

land  and  by  sea,  shall  hav  been  swept  away  forever ;  when 
the  glory  and  ambition  of  individuals  and  nations  shall  be 
found  only  in  the  fellowship  of  love,  in  deep  humility,  in  the 

w  That  l-ather  Greece  from  us  (Hebrews)  these  arts  deriv'd 
111  imitated,  whilst  they  loudest  sing 
The  vices  of  their  deities  and  their  own 

In  fable,  hymn,  or  song. ' 

Remove  their  swelling  epithets  thick  laid, 
As  varnish  on  a  harlot's  cheek,  the  rest, 
Then  sown  with  profit  or  delight, 
Will  far  be  found  unworthy  to  compare 
With  Zion's  songs,  to  all  true  tastes  excelling." 

Not  must  it  be  forgotten  that  the  judgment  of  our  Savior  is 
pronounc'd  in  reply  to  the  eloquent  comendation  of  classic  litera- 
ture by  Satan,  from  v.  221  to  v.  284.  With  such  a  testimony  or* 
the  tra  character  and  influence  of  the  classics,  I  may  well  say, 
that  to  teach  them  to  Christian  youth  for  the  sake  of  their  beau- 
tys,  is  to  imitate  Artemisia,  when  she  mixd  the  pulveriz'd 
bones  of  Mausolus  with  odors  and  water,  and  drank  the  com- 
pound as  a  precious  beverage.  A  large  portion  of  the  classics, 
taught  in  our  schools  and  colleges,  consists  of  history.  Henry  has 
justly  said,  and  his  remark  is  pre-eminently  tru  of  Greek  and 
Roman  history,  "  The  Muse  of  history  has  been  so  much  in  love 
with  Mars,  that  she  has  seldom  convers'd  with  Minerva."  And 
Cowper,  in  speaking  of  the  great  superiority  of  the  martyr  over 
the  patriot,  says — 


-Their  ashes  flew 


No  marble  tells  us  whither.     With  their  names 
No  bard  embalms  and  sanctifies  his  song  : 
And  history,  so  warm  on  meaner  themes, 
Is  cold  on  this.     She  execrates,  indeed, 
The  tyrany  that  doomed  them  to  the  fire, 
But  gives  the  glorious  sufferers  little  praise." 

The  Task,  B.  5. 

The  history  of  Greece  and  Rome,  breathes  evry  where  the 
sentiment  of  Teres  the  Thracian,  who  said,  "  That  when  he  was 
not  engaged  in  war,  he,  tho't  there  was  no  difference  between 


219 

emulation  of  good  works, — in  the  spirit  of  usefulnes  and  the 
sens  of  duty  ;  in  peace,  Christian  in  its  character,  universal 
in  its  dominions. 

himself  and  his  grooms."  Epaminondas  calld  a  fine  army, 
without  a  general,  "  a  wild  beast  without  a  head  ;"  and  do  not 
the  classic  historians  almost  universaly  exhibit  this  ferocious 
and  sanguinary  beast  with  its  blood-thirsty,  insatiable  head,  as 
objects  of  prais  and  admiration  1  The  spirit  of  ancient  history 
is  found  in  the  proposal  of  Erianthus  to  destroy  Athens,  and  turn 
its  site  into  a  sheepwalk:  and  in  the  conduct  of  all  Greece  when 
they  forbade  the  rebuilding  of  the  sacred  monuments  destroy'd  by 
the  Persians,  that  their  vow  of  hatred,  like  that  of  Hannibal, 
might  never  die.  For  one  reign  of  Numa  (if,  indeed,  it  be  not 
incredible,  in  such  an  age  and  state  of  society)  we  hav  hun- 
dreds whose  only  character  is  war.  For  one  Phocion,  whom 
the  allys  of  Athens  went  out  to  meet,  crownd  and  rejoicing,  we 
hav  hundreds  of  warriors,  cruel,  unjust,  and  tyranical.  For  one 
treaty  of  peace,  like  Gelon's  with  Carthage,  stipulating  the 
abandonment  of  the  sacrifice  of  their  children,  we  hav  scores 
dictated  by  insolent  power  and  selfish  ambition.  Scipio  restorM 
to  the  citys  of  Italy,  Spain,  Africa,  and  Sicily,  the  spoils  which 
Carthage  had  collected  from  them  in  various  wars,  and  the  same 
was  the  condition  of  evry  principal  ancient  city.  "  Alexander," 
says  Gray,  (2  vol.  Connect  p.  266.)  is  justly  describ'd  by  Oro- 
sius,  "  as  a  great  gulf  of  miseries,  and  a  most  dreadful  hurricane 
which  laid  waste  the  East."  And  yet  the  same  writer  (Gray) 
in  the  very  next  sentence  tells  us,  "  the  permanent  advantage 
which  resulted  from  his  measures,  has  prov'd  that  his  plans  were 
not  merely  stupendous,  but  conceivd  with  much  wisdom  and  re- 
gard to  the  general  interest  of  the  world.1'' !!  Such  is  the  consist- 
ency of  the  Christian  admirers  of  the  warriors  and  the  classics  ! 
Alexander  treasur'd  up  the  Iliad  in  the  precious  casket  of  Darius  ; 
and  plae'd  it  with  his  sword  as  a  worthy  companion  of  the  de- 
stroyer; but  Christians  enshrine  the  Homers  and  Ceesars  of  an- 
tiquity, in  the  most  precious  of  all  caskets,  the  immortal  souls  of 
Christian  children,  and  giv  their  writings  to  youth,  as  fit 
companions  for  the  Gospel  of  the  Prince  of  Peace. 


220 

I  hav  said,  that  Christians,  and  even  the  Christian  minis- 
try, hav  never  realiz'd  the  truth,  power,  and  beauty  of  the 
principles  of  peace.  With  the  exception  of  the  two  first  cen- 
turys  of  the  Christian  era,  the  vast  majority  of  Christians, 
hav  either  tolerated  or  vindicated  war,  and  hav  lavished  on 
the  achievments  of  the  warrior,  the  emulation  of  youth,  the 
admiration  of  man,  and  the  gratitude  of  woman.  Christians 
of  one  denomination  only  hav  had  the  courage  and  consist- 
ency to  abide  with  the  faith  of  primitiv  disciples,  and  the 
constancy  of  martyrs,  by  the  simple  command  of  their  Mas- 
Let  me  not  be  misunderstood — I  condemn  the  classics  as 
studys  for  youth,  as  inconsistent  with  the  purity  and  humility,  the 
forbearance  and  forgivnes,  the  love  and  peace,  enjoind  by  Jesus 
Christ,  I  would  therefore,  banish  them  forever  from  the  education 
of  Christian  youth.  But  when  the  disciplin  of  the  mind,  the  en- 
lightenment of  the  conscience,  and  the  formation  of  the  moral  taste 
hav  been  completed  by  a  truly  Christian  course  of  education, 
founded  on  duly  and  usefulnes,  &c,  the  knowlege  of  Gcd  and  his 
works,  then  the  classics  would  be  harmles.  "To  the  pure,  all 
things  are  pure,"  and  they  might  then  look  upon  the  abominations 
of  Heathen  poetry,  and  the  atrocitys  of  Heathen  history,  as  Je- 
remy Taylor  says,  the  sunbeam  isunpoluted  by  the  filth  on  which 
it  shines.  The  Christian  man,  fashion'd  by  the  religion  of  love, 
humility,  and  peace,  has  nothing  to  dread  from  the  poetry,  his- 
tory, or  mythology  of  Greece.  The  Christian  as  a  man,  mingles 
fearless,  and  uninjur'd  with  the  vulgar  in  speech,  the  corrupt  in 
morals,  and  the  vicious  in  manner,  for  he  will  often  reclaim  them, 
and  cannot  himself  be  defil'd.  But  who  would  act  wisely  in  ex- 
posing the  boy,  the  youth,  the  young  man  to  their  influence  ]  Yet 
such  is  precisely  the  conduct  of  the  advocate  of  the  classics,  as 
the  text  books  of  Christian  youth.  Let  the  Christian,  when  ar- 
rivd  at  maturity  of  years,  study  the  history  of  his  species,  in  all 
the  various  forms  of  literature,  and  in  all  the  languages  that  his 
means,  and  time,  and  capacity  will  enable  him  to  master.  But 
spare  the  souls  of  Christian  youth  from  classic  influences,  to  them, 
dangerous,  destructiv,  and  unhallow'd. 


221 

ter.  They  hav  adopted  in  theory,  and  ilustrated  by  exam- 
ple, the  truth,  the  power,  the  beauty  of  the  principles  of 
peace.  They  hav  resolv'd  to  deliver  religion  from  her  un- 
natural union  with  war,  "  That  foulest  spot  upon  her  vestal 
robe."  They  hav  pledg'd  themselvs  to  inflexible  obedience 
to  the  law  of  peace  and  lov.  Well  may  they  stand  by  that 
noble  purpose ;  for  it  is  among  the  highest  and  holyst  of  Chris- 
tian testimonys.  Theirs  is  no  visionary  banner,  with  imagi- 
nary cross  and  fanciful  inscription,  the  herald  of  violence  and 
bloodshed,  but  the  snowy  flag  of  peace,  bearing  as  its  motto, 
"  No  cross  no  crown."  Theirs  is,  indeed,  the  cross  of  contempt 
and  derision  :  but  it  is  the  same  that  their  Master  bore,  for  he 
also  was  despis'd  and  rejected  of  men-  Theirs  is,  indeed,  the 
crown  of  thorns,  of  mockery  and  contumely  ,*  but  theirs  is 
a  crown  more  precious  than  the  diadem  of  princes ;  more 
glorious  than  the  wreath  of  victory ;  for  it  is  the  crown  of 
humility,  love,  and  peace.  William  Penn  is  a  nobler,  loveiyer 
being  in  the  sight  of  God,  than  the  warlike  Puritan  of  New 
England,  the  martial  cavalier  of  Virginia,  or  the  chivalrous 
Hugonot  of  Carolina.  I  know  there  ar  those  whose  pride 
will  be  shocked,  whose  taste  will  revolt  at  such  a  sentiment. 
But  let  them  test  it  by  the  precepts  and  examples  of  Him, 
who  rebuk'd  even  the  belov'd  disciple,  when  he  would  hav 
calld  down  fire  from  heaven,  and  who  would  not  suffer  legions 
of  angels  to  rescue  even  himself  from  the  hands  of  his 
enemys. 

The  truth,  power,  and  beauty  of  the  peace  principles  of 
the  Quakers,  hav  been  ilustrated  amidst  imminent  perils 
and  terrific  scenes  :  and  they  hav  triumphd  in  defiance  of  all 
human  calculations  and  probabilitys.  During  the  Indian 
wars  of  New  England,  the  unarmd  Quakers  were  unmo- 
lested in  person,  habitation  or  property ;  because  they  were 
regarded  as  men  of  peace  and  friends,  while  in  the  few  in- 
stances in  which  they  had  not  the  faith  and  courage  to  rely 

t2 


222 

on  the  shield  of  peace,  they  were  shot  as  enemys,  bearing 
the  warrior's  badge.  During  seventy  years,  the  province  of 
Pennsylvania,  under  the  government  of  the  Friends,  was  at 
peace  with  her  Indian  neighbors,  and  there  only  the  chil- 
dren of  the  forest  found  the  Christian  to  be,  wise  as  the  ser- 
pent and  harmless  as  the  dove.  Mythology  had  fabled,  that 
in  the  Venetian  groves  of  the  Argive  Juno  and  the  Etolian 
Diana,  the  wild  beast  was  tam'd ;  the  deer  and  the  wolf  were 
companions ;  and  there  the  fugitiv  animal  found  a  place  of 
refuge,  never  invaded  by  his  pursuer.  But  thro'out  all 
Christendom,  Pennsylvania  was  the  only  city  of  refuge,  the 
only  land  of  peace,  in  the  visible  kingdom  of  the  Prince  of 
peace.  But  the  most  ilustrious  and  striking  example  of  the 
truth,  beauty  and  power,  of  the  peace  principle,  is  to  be 
found  in  the  conduct  of  the  Quakers,  during  the  rebellion  of 
1798,  in  Ireland.*     Never,  was  any  contest  in  ancient  or 

*The  simple  narrativ  of  Thomas  Hancock,  M.  D.  in  his  little 
work  (publishd  in  London  in  1825,  and  re-publishd  in  Philadel- 
phia by  Thomas  Kite  in  1829)  on  "  the  principles  of  peace,  ex- 
emplifyd  in  the  conduct  of  the  Society  of  Friends  in  Ireland, 
during  the  rebellion  of  the  year  1798,"  is  a  striking  manifesta- 
tion of  their  power  and  beauty.  Let  me  recomend  most  earnest- 
ly this  little  volume  to  evry  Christian,  philanthropist,  and  pa- 
triot. Would  that  it  were  in  evry  library  in  our  land ;  and  that 
evry  Sunday  school  thro'out  the  world  taught  it  faithfully  and 
zealously.  The  annals  of  martyrdom,  with  all  their  testimo- 
nys  to  the  strength  of  duty,  the  power  of  faith,  the  spirit  of  self- 
sacrifice  and  Christian  courage,  contain  nothing  more  remark- 
able and  afecting.  It  is  impossible  to  read  it  without  acknow- 
leging  that  the  courage  of  humility  and  peace  is  altogether 
more  admirable  than  that  of  pride  and  violence  :  that  the  simple, 
humble  Quaker,  returning  good  for  evil,  blessing  for  cursing, 
kind  words  for  threats,  and  entreaty  for  insolence :  and  resisting 
firmly,  yet  meekly  and  benevolently,  evry  temptation  of  fear  and 
danger,  is  the  only  consistent  Christian,  the  only  pure  and  genu- 


223 

modern  times;  not  the  struggle  of  Marius  and  Sylla,  not  the 
feuds  of  the  Highland  Clans,  nor  the  war  of  "  La  Vendee/' 

in  subject  of  the  Prince  of  peace.  Can  any  Christian  doubt, 
had  Jesus  been  there,  that  he  would  hav  acted  precisely  as  the 
Friend  acted  1  and  that  he  would  not  hav  imitated,  under  any 
conceivable  circumstances,  the  conduct  of  the  patriot  rebel  or 
the  royalist  soldier  ]  Evry  one  admits  that  war  is  a  great  evil, 
that  it  is  exceedingly  desirable  to  abolish  it ;  yet,  false  pride  and 
false  honor  perpetuate  an  institution  radicaly  wicked  and  perni- 
cious. No  country  can  be  truly  Christian,  till  war,  both  foreign 
and  domestic  be  banishd  forever:  and  the  law  of  love,  humility 
and  peace  be  substituted  for  the  law  of  revenge,  pride  and  vio- 
lence. 

In  the  conduct  of  the  Quakers  of  Ireland  in  1798,  we  behold  a 
happy  exemplification  of  the  sentiments  of  Josephus,  "That 
those,  who  in  order  to  their  own  security,  condemn  others  to  de- 
struction, and  use  great  endeavors  about  it,  fail  of  their  purpose; 
but  that  others  ar  in  a  surprising  manner  preservd,  and  obtain 
a  prosperous  condition,  almost  from  the  very  midst  of  their  cala- 
rnitys."  And  how  happily  is  ilustrated  by  this  noble  band  of 
self-devoted  Christians,  the  old  Greek  proverb,  "  If  God  be 
with  us,  evry  thing  that  is  impossible,  becomes  possible."  Or 
to  look  to  the  sacred  record,  how  aptly  may  we  compare  their 
faith  and  humility,  to  the  conduct  of  Ezra,  as  told  with  such 
afecting  simplicity.  "  Then  I  proclaimd  a  fast  there,  at  the  ri- 
ver Ahava,  that  we  might  afflict  ourselvs  before  our  God,  and 
seek  of  Him  a  right  way  for  us,  and  for  our  little  ones,  and  for 
all  our  substance.  And  I  was  ashamed  to  require  of  the  king  a 
band  of  soldiers  and  horsemen,  to  help  us  against  the  enemy  in  the 
way:  because  we  had  spoken  unto  the  king,  saying,  The  hand  of 
our  God  is  upon  all  them  that  seek  Him,  but  His  power  and  His 
wrath  is  against  all  them  that  forsake  Him.  So  we  fasted  and  be- 
sought our  God  for  this  :  and  He  was  entreated  of  us."  Ch.  8. 
v.  21,22,  23. 

With  the  Christian  example  of  the  Quakers,  let  me  couple  the 
zeal,  fidelity  and  perseverance  of  Mr.  William  Ladd,  of  Minot, 
Maine,  and  of  the  Rev.   Dr.  Worcester,  of  Brighton,  Mass, 


224 

distinguishd  by  ferocity  more  remorseless,  by  carnage  more 
wanton,  by  passions  more  terrible  and  desolating.  Yet, 
amid  the  horrors  of  that  desperate  warfare,  in  the  midst  of 
flaming  villages  and  mind  fields,  of  the  dying  and  the  dead, 
of  threats,  and  curses,  and  iminent  death ;  amid  the  alternate 
triumphs  of  the  insolent  soldier  and  the  exasperated  rebel, 
the  Quakers,  strong  in  the  faith  of  uncompromising  obedi- 
ence, calm  and  humble,  yet  inflexible  in  their  purpose,  ad- 
her'd  to  their  solemn  covenant  not  to  bear  arms.  In  vain 
may  chivalry  devote  them  to  scorn  and  infamy,  as  cowards : 
in  vain  may  the  patriot  brand  them  as  traitors  to  their  coun- 
try :  in  vain  may  the  freeman  spurn  them  from  his  presence, 
or  tread  them  under  his  feet,  as  worthy  only  of  chains  and 
bondage ;  and  pour  upon  them  the  indignant  execration  even 
of  the  pious  Cowper :  "  Patience  itself,  is  meanness  in  a 
slave."  Theirs  was  a  courage  more  venturesome  and  fear- 
less, than  that  of  the  warrior;  for  they  dar'd,  unarmd, 
the  fury  and  resentment  both  of  royalists  and  united  Irish- 

whose  services  in  the  cause  of  peace  entitle  them  to  the  respect 
and  afection  of  evry  good  man.  They  hav  earnd  and  deserv  the 
title  of  the  "  apostles  of  peace,"  for  their  unwearyd  labors  in 
this  most  Christian  cause.  The  Solemn  Review  of  the  Custom 
of  War,  by  Dr.  Worcester,  and  the  two  little  volumes  of  Mr. 
Ladd,  (1st  and  2d  series  of  Philanthropos  on  peace  and  war) 
contain  many  interesting  facts  and  valuable  remarks.  They  de- 
serv to  be  read  universaly,  for  I  doubt  not  they  would  convince 
hundreds  if  not  thousands,  as  the  "  Friend  of  Peace,  and  other 
tracts  of  the  Massachusetts  Peace  Society,"  convincd  Mr.  Ladd 
that  war  is  a  great  evil,  which  might  be  banishd  from  civiliz'd 
society,  and  that  it  is  the  duty  of  evry  man  to  lend  a  helping 
hand  to  bring  about  so  desirable  an  event.  For  myself,  I  thank 
them  and  Thomas  Hancock,  for  the  instruction  and  encourage- 
ment they  hav  afforded  me.  I  would  go  further  to  see  their 
faces  and  enjoy  their  conversation,  than  to  visit  men  ilustrious 
for  military  and  naval  achievments. 


225 

men.  Theirs  was  a  nobler  and  better  alegiance,  than  that 
of  the  soldier  to  his  king,  or  of  the  patriot  to  his  country;  for 
it  was  the  alegiance  of  man  to  God,  of  faithful  subjects  to 
the  Prince  of  peace.  They  were  freemen  by  a  holyer,  higher 
title,  than  the  patriot  of  Greece,  or  Holland,  or  Britain ;  they 
were  citizens  of  a  more  ilustrious  republic  than  Rome,  or 
Switzerland,  or  America  can  boast,  for  theirs  was  the  glori- 
ous liberty  of  the  sons  of  God ;  theirs  was  the  commonwealth 
of  the  Christian  Israel ;  theirs  the  Holy  City  of  the  living 
God.  Theirs  was  the  courage,  the  alegiance,  the  liberty, 
not  of  the  mortal  warrior,  patriot  and  freeman,  but  of  the 
Redeemer  himself,  of  the  glorious  company  of  the  apostles* 
of  the  noble  army  of  martyrs.  Let  him  who  questions  the 
courage  of  the  Savior,  the  patriotism  of  apostles,  the  mar- 
tyr's unquenchable  love  of  freedom,  dare  to  cast  on  the  fol- 
lowers of  Penn,  the  bitter  reproach  of  cowardice,  treason,  or 
a  slavish  spirit.  If  their  self-sacrifice  purchase  for  them  the 
title  of  cowards,  traitors,  slaves,  let  the  angel  and  the  arch- 
angel be  branded  with  these  epithets ;  for  theirs  too,  is  the 
courage,  the  fidelity,  the  liberty,  not  of  the  warrior-patriot, 
and  warrior-freeman ;  but  of  love  and  duty,  and  obedience  to 
the  law  of  peace. 

[For  the  remarks  respecting  the  revolutionary  war,  which 
follow  in  this  Address,  Mr.  Grimke  is  to  be  considered  re- 
sponsible. On  this  subject,  various  opinions  exist  in  the 
minds  of  members  of  peace  societies  and  of  others  eminent 
for  talent  and  piety.] 

Let  me  then  subject  the  truth,  the  beauty,  the  power  of 
peace  principles,  to  the  most  afecting  and  interesting  trial, 
which  Americans  can  contemplate — the  crisis  of  the  revolu- 
tion. I  feel,  I  deeply  feel,  the  solemnity  of  the  subject.  I 
trust  that  I  realize  the  awful  responsibility  to  God,  the 
world,  my  country,  involvd  in  the  views  which  I  am  now  to 
present.     I  know   that,  thousands  and  tens  of  thousands 


226 

stand  ready  to  charge  me  with  ingratitude  to  the  statesmen 
and  patriots  of  1776,  with  the  insensibility  of  a  slave  and  a 
coward  to  the  suferings  and  triumphs  of  the  glorious  dead. 
I  know  that  accusing  voices  will  arise  from  evry  part  of  our 
land,  and  bid  me,  with  the  bitterness  of  sarcasm  and  the 
energy  of  indignation,  to  begone  from  the  land  of  the  most 
ilustrious  of  freemen,  and  be  a  slave  in  Portugal,  or  Russia, 
at  Naples,  or  Madrid.  Be  it  so.  /  shrink  not  from  the 
accountability  of  condemning,  universaly,  unconditionaly , 
the  warlike  means  employd  to  accomplish  the  revolution. 
Its  objects  were  worthy  of  Christian  wisdom,  liberty  and 
benevolence.  But  war  and  the  warrior,  violence  and  blood- 
shed in  evry  form,  were  instruments  unworthy  of  a  Chris- 
tian people,  and  forbidden  by  the  religion  they  professd.  To 
the  heathen  patriot  the  sword  and  the  shield,  ar  natural, 
rightful  weapons ;  but  to  the  Christian  patriot,  they  ar  pro- 
hibited as  irreconcilable  with  faith  in  God,  and  love  to  man. 
I  would  hav  had  the  patriots  of  the  revolution,  resoiv 
that,  come  what  might,  not  a  sword  should  be  drawn,  not  a 
drop  of  blood  should  be  shed  in  vindication  of  American 
rights.  I  would  hav  had  them  worship,  not  in  the  temple 
of  Mars,  but  in  the  sanctuary  of  peace.  Their  offerings 
should  hav  been,  not  the  wounded  and  the  slaughterd,  not 
the  shock  of  battel,  not  the  wreath  of  the  conqueror,  nor  the 
the  terrors  of  the  vanquishd.  With  their  supplications  for 
strength  and  courage  and  victory,  should  never  hav  mingled 
the  agonys  and  shrieks,  the  rage  and  blasphemys  of  the 
battel  field.  Their  anthems  of  thanksgiving  and  prais, 
should  not  hav  been  polluted  by  the  thunder  of  cannon,  or 
the  notes  of  the  trumpet.  In  their  Christian  temples  should 
never  hav  been  seen,  the  pomp  of  martial  processions,  the 
glittering  helm,  and  the  standard  consecrated  by  the  bood  of 
its  defenders.  Thro'out  their  realm,  should  hav  been  found 
not  a  battel  field,  the  grave  yard  of  national  violence  and 


227 

crimes :  not  the  onward  march  of  hope,  not  the  flight  of  des- 
pair, nor  the  encampment  of  hostil  armys.  They  should 
hav  adorn'd  and  vindicated  the  truth,  the  power,  the  beauty 
of  the  principles  of  peace.  Their  banner  should  hav  been 
the  dove,  meek,  gentle,  compassionate,  faithful;  not  the 
eagle,  fierce  and  sanguinary,  the  monarch  of  birds  of  prey, 
the  ensign  of  conquerors  and  tyrants.  I  would  hav  had  them 
liv  and  die,  if  death  was  their  lot,  as  became  the  Christian 
patriot,  not  on  the  battel  field  of  murder  and  suicide,  but  on 
the  scaffold  or  in  the  flames  of  martyrdom.  I  would  hav 
had  them,  not  breathing  out  threatnings  and  slaughter,  like 
another  Saul,  against  the  enemys  of  their  country ;  but  yield- 
ing their  spirits  a  willing  sacrifice,  in  the  cause  of  freedom, 
to  Christian  humility,  faith  and  love.  I  would  hav  had  them 
say  to  the  advocate  of  war  under  the  plea  of  necessity,  and 
the  sanction  of  all  other  Christian  nations,  "  We  ought  to 
obey  God  rather  than  man."  I  would  hav  had  them  realize 
the  pure  and  holy  love,  the  sublime  devotion,  the  inflexible 
faith,  the  generous  hopes  and  glorious  destiny  of  a  chris- 
tian people.  I  would  hav  had  them  realize,  that  God  had 
indeed  wink'd  at  the  times  of  this  ignorance,  when  the 
Christian  was  a  soldier;  but  that  he  now  commanded  all 
men  evry  where  to  repent,  and  to  refrain  from  war.  I 
would  hav  had  them  realize,  that  the  dispensation  of  violence 
and  bloodshed,  of  valor  and  the  warrior  had  passd  away, 
and  the  dispensation  of  peace  and  forbearance,  of  fortitude 
and  martyrdom  had  succeeded.  I  would  hav  had  them 
realize  that  they  had  not  come,  like  the  warrior-Israelites  of 
old,  to  the  mount  that  might  be  touch'd,  and  that  burn'd  with 
fire ;  nor  unto  blacknes  and  darknes  and  tempest ;  nor  yet  to 
garments  rolld  in  blood,  and  the  confus'd  noise  of  the  warrior. 
I  would  hav  had  them  realize,  that  they  had  come,  not  to 
these,  but  to  the  cross  of  agony  and  mockery  and  shame,  to 
the  martyr  mount  of  Calvary,  to  the  city  of  the  living  God, 


228 

and  to  Jesus  the  mediator  of  the  new  covenant,  the  covenant 
of  humility  and  forgivnes,  of  faith,  and  love  and  peace. 

O !  what  a  glorious  scene  would  then  hav  been  displayd 
to  the  astonishment  and  admiration  of  the  world!  How 
would  the  Christians  of  sixteen  centurys  hav  stood  rebuk'd, 

'*  And  felt  how  awful  goodness  is,  and  seen 
Virtue  in  her  shape,  how  lovely  ! " 

Behold  a  people  more  inteligent,  happy  and  free,  than  any 
that  had  ever  existed.  Their  rights  ar  invaded,  their  present 
interests  neglected,  their  permanent  welfare  hazarded.  Their 
injurys  ar  inflicted  by  those,  who  were  bound  to  protect  and 
bless  them :  by  the  ministry  of  a  parent-king,  by  the  repre- 
sentativs  of  brothers.  The  indignitys  and  threats  employ'd 
against  them,  ar  messengers  of  wrath  from  the  land  of  their 
despis'd  and  persecuted  ancestors.  Scorn  and  insult  and 
violence  ar  wafted  by  evry  breeze  from  the  home  of  the 
inteligent  and  free,  of  the  patriot,  philanthropist  and  Chris- 
tian. Never  was  a  nobler  oportunity  offerd  to  a  nation  of 
Christians,  by  calm  resignation,  inflexible  constancy  and 
generous  self-sacrifice,  to  attest,  in  the  presence  of  the  world, 
their  faith,  obedience  and  love;  and  to  vindicate  the  truth, 
power  and  beauty  of  the  principles  of  peace. 

And  is  the  inquiry  made  by  the  advocates  of  war,  how 
should  they  hav  acted? — The  answer  is  easy,  if  we  take  as 
our  guide  the  sentiments  of  Peter  and  John,  "  Whether  it  be 
right  in  the  sight  of  God,  to  hearken  unto  you,  more  than 
unto  God,  judge  ye."  I  would  hav  had  them  say  to  the 
British  king  and  his  ministry,  to  the  parliment  and  people  of 
England,  "  We  ar  your  children  and  your  brethren:  protec- 
tion and  justice,  encouragement  and  assistance  from  you,  ar 
our  birthright.  We  hav  a  British  title  to  be  free,  prosperous 
and  happy.     Yet  hav  you  dealt  with  us,  as  stangers  and 


229 

hirelings,  and  even  as  enemys.  We  hav  petitiond  and  ex- 
postulated and  reasond  in  vain.  We  hav  besought  you,  by 
the  ties  of  a  common  ancestry,  by  the  exalted  privileges  of 
a  free  constitution,  and  the  holy  fellowship  of  Christians,  to 
spare  us  the  bitter  cup  of  a  brother's  contumely,  of  a  pa- 
rent's anger.  To  mockery — you  hav  added  revilings,  to 
revilings- — injustice,  to  injustice? — threats,  to  threats — vio- 
lence and  punishment.  We  hav  borne  it  all,  as  becomes 
those  on  whose  soul  is  the  vow  to  love  our  enemys;  to  bless 
them  that  curs,  to  do  good  to  them  that  hate  us.  We  hav 
borne  it,  as  becomes  those  whose  trust  is  in  God,  not  as  the 
god  of  battels,  but  as  the  God  of  mercy  and  righteousnes,  of 
peace  and  love.  Go  on  then  in  your  career  of  injustice 
and  contempt  and  injury.  Double  the  measure  of  our  hu- 
miliation and  sufferings.  Brand  our  entreatys  with  the  name 
of  cowardice;  call  our  humility  meannes;  our  respect  for 
you,  the  language  of  servility ;  and  trample  on  our  love,  as 
the  folly  of  the  dotard  or  the  ravings  of  the  enthusiast. 
Send  among  us  the  insolent  tax-gatherer,  and  the  more  inso- 
lent soldier.  Command  the  delegates  of  your  power,  in  the 
chair  of  state  or  in  the  courts  of  justice,  in  the  army  or  the 
navy,  to  harass  and  persecute  and  oppress.  Cast  the  father 
into  prison,  confiscate  his  property,  banish  the  wife  of  his 
bosom,  scater  the  children  of  his  afections ':  Let  the  perjury 
of  magistrates,  and  the  corruption  or  timidity  of  jurors,  con- 
demn the  innocent  to  death,  and  stain  the  scaffold  or  the 
faggot,  with  the  blood  of  Christian  martyrs,  in  the  cause  of 
Christian  freedom.  All  this,,  and  more  than  this,  we  ar 
ready  to  bear,  with  a  love  that  cannot  be  quenchd,  with  a 
constancy  inflexible  and  undying,  with  a  faith  calm  and 
humble,  yet  fixd  and  invincible.  Yours  is  indeed  the  power 
to  afflict  and  torment,  be  it  our  lot  to  suffer  with  fortitude 
and  resignation ;  for  ours  is  a  nobler,  better  power,  to  bless 
and  forgiv.  In  vayi  may  you  hope  to  prevail.  Yours  ar 
U 


230 

the  instruments  of  weaknes  and  fear,  of  tyrany  and  violence- 
We  shall  prevail ;  for  ours  ar  the  weapons  of  righteousnes, 
peace  and  love,  the  gift  of  God  himself.  As  there  is  truth 
in  ms  promises,  you  must  yield,  we  shall  conquer.  Passion 
and  prejudice,  pride  and  disappointment  may  sustain  you  for 
a,  while?  hut  our  love,  and  hope,  and  faith,  ar  imperishable? 
unconquerable.  Our  purpose  is  irrevocably  taken :  we 
wiU  he  free :  we  will  hav  ike  precious  rights  of  British 
■freemen  ;  hui^  never  shall  violence  and  bloodshed  be  our 
arms*  We  must  conquer,  if  we  faint  not.  We  know  that 
passion  and  prejudice,  anger  and  pride  must  yield  to  firm- 
nes,  reason,  good  sens,  and  candor.  We  know,  that  you 
yonrselvsj  when  the  season  of  wrath  and  arrogance  shall 
hav  passd  away,  will  wipe  the  tears  from  our  eys,  and 
wash  out  the  blood-spots  from  our  garments.  We  know, 
that,  you  yourselvs  will  break  the  chains  of  the  captiv 
father,  and  recal  the  exifd  mother,  and  gather  their  wander- 
ing children  into  your  own  bosoms.  We  know  that  the 
very  tongue  which  has  mockd  our  sufferings  and  utterd  the 
sentence  of  imprisonment  or  death,  will  ask  forgivnes  in  the 
accents  of  returning  love.  We  know  that  the  very  hands, 
which  staind  the  scaffold  or  kindled  the  fire,  will  build  the 
monument  of  your  own  victims,  and  accord  to  the  land 
they  lovd  and  died  for,  the  precious  privileges  purchased  by 
the.  love  of  Christian  patriots,  by  the  death  of  Christian 
martyrs." 

O!  that  my  country  had  thus  spoken,  had  thus  acted !  O I 
that  she  had  given  this  noble  example  of  the  love,  devotion, 
and  faith  of  a  Christian  people  I  O!  that  she  had  "appeald 
to  the  Supreme  Judge  of  the  world,"  not  as  the  God  of 
battel,  but  as  the  Prince  of  Peace!  O!  that  her  people, 
"  witi^  a  firm  reliance  on  the  protection  of  divine  Provi- 
dence,? had  "  pledgd  to  each  other  their  lives,  their  fortunes 
and  their  sacred  honor/'  in  the  spirit  of  Christian  martyrs. 


231 

not  of  patriot  warriors  f  Then,  not  a  drop  of  blood  had 
been  shed,  but  would  hav  been  precious  in  the  sight  of 
Angels.  Then,  not  a  life  had  been  lost,  but  to  the  disem- 
bodyd  spirit  would  hav  been  fulfil  Id  the  promis,  tf  this  night 
shalt  thou  be  with  me  in  paradise.'"  Then,  not  a  grave  had 
been  opend  for  the  victim  of  tyrany,  but  devout  men  would 
hav  carryd  another  Stephen  to  his  buriaL  Then,  from  the 
dungeon  and  the  prison-ship  would  hav  been  heard  the 
midnight  hymn  of  faith  and  hope,  while  on  the  scafold  and 
at  the^  stake,  would  hav  ascended  the  prayer  of  love, 
"  Fatherl  forgiv  them,  they  know  not  what  they  do."*5 

And  must  not  such  a  people  hav  conquerd?  What 
power  on  earth  could  hav  withstood  their  humility  and  re- 
signation, the  energy  of  their  patriotism,  and  their  constancy 
amid  suferings?  Tell  me  not  of  a  misguided  king  and  a 
tyranical  ministry.  Tell  me  not  of  a  jealous  parliment  and 
a  still  more  jealous  people.  That  misguided  king  was  a  man 
of  sens  and  benevolent  afections,  a  Christian  prince,  whose 
love  for  his  people  was  attested  hy  the  wish  that  he  might 
liv  to  see  the  day  when  not  a  family  in  his  dominions  should 
be  without  a  bible.  That  oppressiv  ministry  had  the  hearts 
of  men  and  the  heads  of  British  statesmen :  nor  could  they 
hav  resisted  the  monarch,  the  parliment,  and  the  people. 
That  parliment  had  too  much  of  British  feeling,  sentiment, 
and  principle  to  persevere  in  such  a  system  of  oppression. 
That  people  had  too  generous  and  manly  a  spirit  to  tolerate 
such  tyrany.  America,  as  the  land  of  Christian  freemen, 
calmly,  resolutely  self-devoted  to  martyrdom,  returning  good 
for  evil,  and  blessing  for  cursing,  unprovok'd  by  mdignitys 
and  unpoluted  by  hatred,  anger  or  violence,  must  hav  con- 
querd that  monarch,  with  his  ministry,  his  parliment  and  his 
people ;  for  theirs  would  hav  been  a  heavenly  warfare  and 
Christian  arms.  They  must  hav  conquerd ;  for  the  truth, 
beauty  and  power  of  the  principles  of  peace,  ar  invincible 


23*2 

as  a  band  of  angels.  In  vain,  against  such  a  people,  may 
an  ambitious,  tyranical  ministry  hav  appeald  to  the  preju- 
dices of  the  monarch,  the  jealousy  of  pariirnent,  and  the 
passions  of  the  people.  In  such  an  age  and  such  a  country, 
with  such  a  government  and  such  a  religion,  it  is  impossible 
they  could  hav  long  prevaild  against  a  nation  of  Christians, 
self-consecrated  to  martyrdom  in  vindication  of  their  rights. 
But  America,  in  the  attitude  of  defiance  and  resistance  ap- 
peard  to  them  a  rebel  in  arms  ,  and  against  such,  prejudice, 
and  jealousy,  and  passion  ar  easyiy  kindled  and  easy  I  y 
kept  alive,  from  year  to  year.  Without  the  aid  of  alternate 
victory  and  defeat,  without  the  stimulating  narrativ  of  sieges; 
and  battels,  and  naval  warfare ;  without  the  appeal  to  fals 
pride  and  fals  honor,  the  pariirnent  and  people  of  England 
would  themselvs  hav  rescu'd  America  from  the  prejudices  of 
the  king  and  the  tyrany  of  his  ministers.  Then  would  hav 
triumphd  the  principles  of  peace,  how  spotless  in  their  truth, 
how  divine  in  their  beauty,  how  invincible  in  their  power ! 
Then,  how  delightful,  how  corLs-icitory  the  victory  of 
Christian  patriots,  how  glorious  their  triumph  of  faith  and 
love !  Then  would  the  conqueror  and  the  vanquishd  hav 
been  bound  together  by  stronger  and  holyer  ties  of  respect, 
esteem,  and  afection.  Envy  and  jealousy,  hatred  and  un- 
charitablenes  would  hav  been  banishd  forever :  and  the  at- 
tachment of  brothers  and  the  fellowship  of  Christians  would 
hav  establishd  their  unlading  empire  in  the  hearts  of  Britons 
and  Americans,  One  such  martyr-triumph  of  a  Christian 
people,  is  worth  all  the  military  and  naval  glory,  all  the  skill 
and  chivalry,  all  the  perils  and  sufe rings  of  Greece  and 
Rome,  of  Venice  and  Switzerland,  of  England  and  America. 
It  must  be  so ;  for  to  love,  is  more  sublime  than  to  hate ;  to 
forgiv  is  nobler  than  to  revenge ;  to  bless  is  better  than  to 
curs ;  to  pray  for  our  enemys  is  a  loftier  heroism  than  to 
call  down  fire  upon  them.    It  must  be  so ;  for  the  principles 


233 

of  peace  ar  a  well-spring  of  purity  and  virtue,  of  benevolence 
and  usefulnes,  of  ail  that  is  sublime  in  our  dutys  and  gene- 
rous in  our  afections  ,*  of  all  that  is  fair  in  the  esteem  of  the 
good,  and  valuable  in  the  judgment  of  the  wise.  It  must  be 
so ;  for  the  spirit  of  peace  is  strong  in  the  energy  of  faith ;  it 
kindles  with  the  hopes  of  the  just  made  perfect ;  its  piety 
emulates  the  adoration  of  angels ;  its  love  is  pure  and  fer- 
vent as  the  love  of  seraphs ;  its  dominion,  immortal  as  the 
soul. 

I  feel  an  assurance,  delightful  in  its  prospects  and  strong 
in  its  faith,  that  our  country  is  yet  destind  to  be  the  noblest 
monument  of  the  principles  of  peace.  It  is  impossible  to 
contemplate  our  history,  and  not  feel  that  we  hav  been  or- 
daind,  thro'  the  simple  character  yet  wonderful  influence  of 
our  institutions,  to  perform  a  more  conspicuous  part  in  the 
moral  government  of  the  world,  than  any  other  people,  an- 
cient or  modern.  O!  that  we  did  but  realize  the  high  and 
responsible  office  to  which  we  hav  been  caild,  in  the  admi- 
nistration of  Providence ;  an  office  so  full  of  dignity,  benevo- 
lence and  beauty:  the  office  of  friend,  counselor,  teacher  of 
the  nations  of  the  earth.  O !  that  we  did  but  look  back  on 
the  past  with  the  humility  and  gratitude  which  becomes  the 
most  favorM  of  nations ;  on  the  present,  with  the  sens  of  un- 
worthines  and  the  diffidence  which  belongs  to  tru  wisdom : 
on  the  future,  with  the  generous  devotion  and  stedfastness 
of  purpose  which  springs  from  the  eniightend  sens  of  duty. 
I  know  that  the  national  institutions  of  the  ancient  people  of 
Israel  were  establishd  by  God  himself.  And  I  believ,  with 
a  faith  as  strong  as  knowlege,  that  the  peculiar  structure  of 
our  government  and  state  of  society  is  equaly  an  ordinance 
of  his  unseen  power.  What  tho'  in  our  history,  I  read  of  no 
patriarchs  and  prophets  and  divine  legislators ;  of  no  pillar 
of  cloud  by  day  and  of  fire  by  night ;  not  of  the  terrors  of 
Sinai  or  the  vision  of  Pizgah  ;  not  of  the  chariot  of  fire  and 

v2 


234 

the  mantel  of  power ;  nor  yet  of  the  fiery  tempest  of  Sodom 
or  the  severd  waves  of  Jordan !  What  tho'  in  the  record  of 
his  dealings  with  us,  I  read  not  that  he  stood  and  measur'd 
the  earth ;  that  he  beheld  and  drove  asunder  the  nations  ; 
that  the  mountains  saw  him  and  trembled ;  that  the  deep 
lifted  up  Ms  hands  on  high  ;  that  the  sun  and  moon  stood  stiU 
in  their  habitations.  What  tho'  in  the  history  of  the  founders 
of  our  institutions,  I  read  not  of  cloven  tongues  like  as  of 
fire,  nor  of  the  earthquake  at  midnight  that  burst  the  prison 
gates  ;  not  of  the  trance  of  Peter,  nor  the  vision  of  Cornelius , 
nor  the  mid-day  glory  that  struck  Paul  with  blindnes.  Yet 
do  I  not  doubt  that  we  ar  the  people  of  his  pasture,  and  the 
sheep  of  his  hand.  Yet  do  I  not  doubt  that  he  is  our  God  and 
the  God  of  our  fathers :  and  that,  in  the  mysterious  order  of 
his  Providence,  he  is  leading  us  onward,  thro'  ways  of  plea - 
santnes  and  paths  of  peace,  to  an  inheritance  more  fair  and 
rich  than  people  hav  ever  had. 

Gentlemen  of  the  Senate  and  Hous  of  Representativs,  offi- 
cers and  members  of  the  Connecticut  Peace  Society,  fellow 
citizens  and  Christian  brethren  of  all  New  England, 

To  you  the  subject  of  peace  comes  recomended  by  argu- 
ments the  most  cogent,  with  associations  the  most  noble  and 
delightful.  Where  in  ancient  or  modern  times,  where  in 
the  old,  or  els  where  in  the  new  world,  is  to  be  found  a  state 
of  society,  of  which  the  freeman  and  patriot,  the  scholar, 
philanthropist  and  Christian  may  be  so  justly  proud?  We 
shall  search  in  vain  for  a  community  more  republican  in 
general  inteligence  and  purity  of  morals,  in  simplicity  of 
manners,  in  the  general  distribution  of  property,  in  the  un- 
restraind,  universal  enjoyment  of  rational  freedom,  and  in 
the  absolute  exemption  from  slavery  in  all  its  forms,  domes- 
tic and  civil,  political  and  ecclesiastical.  In  vain  shall  we 
look  for  a  people  more  generaly  enlightend  on  the  subject  of 
religion,  more  free  from  superstition,  profanenes,  and  fana- 


235 

ticism ;  more  simple  in  warship  ;  more  mild  and  benevolent 
\n  temper,  manners  and  conduct ;  more  stedfast  and  uniform 
in  their  veneration  for  religion,  their  faithful  observance  of 
its  precepts,  and  their  liberality  in  maintaining  all  its  institu- 
tions.    No  other  country  exhibits  a  happier  combination  of 
public  wealth  and  private  independence,  of  national  and  do- 
mestic industry,  frugality  and  perseverance,  of  personal  and 
social  enterprize.     What  other  compares  with  New  England 
in  that  admirable  sens  which  has  ever  made  universal  edu- 
cation a  public  and  private  duty ;   which  scatters  common 
schools,  abundant  as  manna,  over  all  the  land,  and  patronizes 
with  a  munificence,  equald  only  by  its  wisdom,  all  the  more 
elevated,  comprehensiv,  and  durable  institutions  of  literature 
and  education  ?    In  that  wise  and  activ  charity,  which  pro- 
vides for  the  poor,  the  sick,  the  afflicted,  for  the  widow  and 
orphan  ;  for  the  religious  wants  of  fellow  countrymen  and  of 
heathen  lands,  New  England  is  pre-eminent.     In  all  that  is 
fair  and  lovely,  virtuous,  inteligent,  valuable  and  discreet  in 
woman ;  in  all  that  invests  the  manly  character  with  an  air 
of  simplicity  and  dignity,  of  practical  sens,  generous  wis- 
dom, and  enlightend  benevolence,  New  England  has  never 
been  surpassd. 

To  you,  then,  fellow  Christians  and  fellow  Countrymen  of 
New  England,  the  cause  of  peace  comes  indeed  recomended 
by  the  noblest  arguments,  by  the  most  precious  and  charm- 
ing associations.  To  you  she  speaks,  in  a  language  of  com- 
manding authority,  of  persuasiv  eloquence.  To  you,  emphati- 
caly  and  peculiarly  a  free,  enlightend,  Christian  people,  she 
comes  herself  the  most  glorious  and  lovely  child  of  rational 
freedom,  of  general  inteligence,  of  enlightend  religion. 
Your  government  and  all  your  institutions  ar,  at  once,  the 
children,  the  patrons,  and  the  guardians  of  peace.  The  ele- 
ments of  your  state  of  society  ar,  in  a  more  remarkable  de- 
gree, than  has  ever  been  seen,  the  elements  of  peace.  Within 


230 

yourselvs  the  constituents  of  war  ar  unknown ;  for  you  hav 
nothing  to  fear  from  insurrection  or  rebellion,  from  the  vio- 
lence, injustice,  or  ambition  of  rulers.  Thus  privileg'd  and 
blessd,  thus  purifyd,  ennobled  and  adornd,  shall  not  a  deep 
sens  of  gratitude  and  duty  consecrate  such  a  people  in  an 
especial  manner,  the  friends,  champions  and  guardians  of 
peace?  On  you  is  impos'd  an  obligation,  higher,  holyer, 
stronger,  than  has  bound  any  other  community.  To  love, 
to  honour,  to  advocate,  to  carry  forward  the  cause  of  peace, 
at  home  and  abroad,  in  private  and  in  public ;  by  the  gentle 
and  fascinating  influence  of  woman ;  by  the  frank  and  reso- 
lute example  of  man ;  by  the  education  and  the  religion  of 
peace ;  by  the  all-pervading  authority  of  popular  sentiment, 
this,  this  is  at  once  your  privilege,  your  happines,  and  your 
duty. 

The  vow  to  do  this  is  on  your  souls,  patriot  legislators  and 
magistrates  of  New  England,  in  the  responsible,  delicate,  and 
important  functions  entrusted  to  you. — Thus  to  act,  is  your 
vow,  people  of  New  England.  Thus  only  can  you  answer 
to  your  Maker  and  Redeemer,  to  the  Union,  the  world,  pos- 
terity, for  the  noble  distinction  of  being  the  most  virtuous  and 
inteligent,  the  wisest,  happiest,  freest  people,  the  world  has 
ever  seen.-^And  this  is  your  vow,  instructors  of  the  young  ; 
for  to  you  is  committed  the  office  of  enriching  the  mind  and 
heart,  with  the  sanctity  of  virtue,  and  the  usefulnes  of  know- 
lege,  with  the  beautys  of  taste,  and  the  disciplin  of  thought, 
with  activ  benevolence,  and  calm,  peaceful,  comprehensiv 
wisdom. — Fathers  of  evry  household  of  New  England,  it  is 
equaly  your  vow,  to  teach  your  children  the  truth,  dignity, 
and  beauty  of  the  principles  of  peace:  to  teach  them  that  hu- 
mility, forbearance,  love,  and  forgivnes  ar  the  noblest  vir- 
tues of  the  private  and  public  man. — Nor  is  it  less  your  vow, 
mothers  of  New  England ;  for  to  your  tendernes  and  skill 
ar  entrusted  not  only  the  forms  and  health,  but  the  minds, 


237 

and  hearts,  and  souls  of  children  and  youth.  Remember 
that  on  your  fidelity,  good  sensr  and  afection,  rest  the  hopes 
of  future  years,  and  what  your  country  shall  be  in  the  prime 
of  each  successiv  generation,  depends  first  and  chiefly  upon 
you.  Christianity  has  done  much  for  you.  It  has  elevated 
you  abov  the  boasted  female  of  classic  lands,  and  the  lovelyer 
being  of  the  ages  of  chivalry.  It  has  blessd  you  with  domes- 
tic and  social  freedom,  it  has  guarded  you  by  the  sanctions 
of  civil  and  political  institutions,  it  has  honord  you-  as  the 
Christian  wife,  mother,  daughter,  sister;  it  has  given  you 
the  simple,  but  glorious  title  of  Christian  women,  with  the  holy 
plivileges  of  Christian  liberty.  Cultivate,  then,  in  your  chil- 
dren, the  spirit  of  peace.  Teach  them  that  humility  is 
nobler  than  valor,  forgivnes,  than  revenge.  Teach  them 
the  courage  of  duty,  not  of  strength  and  passion  ;  the  fear  of 
God,  not  of  man.— On  you — philanthropists  of  New  Eng- 
land—is laid  this  solemn  vow :  never  to  forget  that  benevo- 
lence is  wise,  virtuous,  elevated,  enduring,  only  when  its 
energys  are  dedicated  with  intens  devotion,  to  the  cause  of 
peace  at  home  and  abroad ;  of  peace,  private  and  public ; 
Christian  in  spirit,  and  universal  in  dominion.  Yours  is  a 
solemn,  delightful  duty,  to  make  your  entire  land  the  temple 
of  peace,  yourselvs  the  ministers  at  a  thousand  altars. — And 
the  vow  is  on  your  souls*  accomplishd  scholars  of  New 
England,  children  of  Harvard  and  Yale,  of  Brown,  Amherst, 
and  Hanover,  and  all  the  fair  sisterhood  of  literature.  To 
you  is  entrusted  a  power,  if  wisely  employd,  benevolent  in 
its  influence,  sublime  in  its  character,  magnificent  in  its  re- 
sults ;  a  power  inseparable  from  the  glory  and  felicity  of 
your  country,  and  the  durability  of  all  her  institutions.  God, 
in  the  order  of  his  Providence,  hath  calld  you  to  bless,  ho- 
nor, and  adorn  her,  with  the  literature  of  a  free,  educated, 
Christian,  peaceful  people.  Yours  is  a  privilege  more  full 
of  dignity,  a  duty  more  full  of  joy,  than  ever  distinguishd 


238 

the  land  of  Sophocles  and  Virgil,  of  Tasso  and  Ercilla,  of 
Racine,  Goethe,  or  Milton.  By  that  vow  it  is  exacted, 
not  only  that  you  add  taste  to  learning,  eloquence  to  wisdom, 
and  genius  to  industry ;  not  only  that  the  page  be  pure,  in- 
struct v,  virtuous ;  but  that  the  spirit  of  peace  breathe  into 
it  a  more  attractiv  beauty,  a  nobler  dignity,  an  authority 
more  august  and  venerable.* — And  shall  not  this  vow,  Chris- 

*  Of  all  the  branches  of  literature,  it  seems  probable  that  fic- 
tion has  hitherto  exercis'd  more  extensiv  and  various  influ- 
ence than  any  other.  And  of  the  departments  of  fiction,  it  cannot 
be  doubted  that  poetry  transcends  all  others,  in  the  power  which 
it  has  thus  far  exerted  over  the  mind,  heart,  and  character.  Vers 
has  ever  been  a  favorit  in  all  ages  and  nations,  and  in  all  states 
of  society.  In  our  own  country,  the  general  influence  of  works 
of  fiction,  is  decidedly  less  than  any  other  which  ever  existed  ; 
because  the  multitude  of  newspapers  which  pervade  the  country 
evry  where,  and  penetrate  to  its  remotest  corners,  occupy  so 
large  a  portion  of  the  time  which  would  otherwise  be  dedicated 
to  works  of  fiction.  Hence  it  follows,  that  the  sens  of  duty  and  the 
spirit  of  usefulnes  and  benevolence,  the  public  affairs  of  at  least  one 
state,  of  the  nation,  and  the  current  history  of  the  whole  world, 
valuable  information  in  general  politics,  history,  and  biography, 
in  the  moral  and  natural  sciences,  in  literature  and  the  arts,  in 
morals,  manners  and  customs,  and  in  religion,  whether  we  regard 
its  history  or  revolutions,  its  theory  or  practice,  its  doctrins,  mys- 
terys,  or  precepts,  ar  daily  and  hourly  exercising  an  influence  at 
once  compreherisiv  and  minute,  profound  and  various,  on  the 
improvement  of  the  mind  and  heart,  and  the  formation  of  charac- 
ter, thro'out  our  country.  Nor  ought  we  to  lose  sight  of  a  species 
of  influence  that  has  been  brought  to  bear  on  the  public  of  this 
country,  with  remarkable  efficacy  already,  and  which  is  yet  des- 
tind  to  exercise  an  almost  imperial  sway.  I  refer  to  the  unexam- 
pled multiplication  of  societys,  especialy  in  the  boundles  field  of 
benevolence,  which  duty  has  thrown  open  to  the  Christian,  philan- 
thropist, and  patriot.  Nothing  like  this  power  of  the  newspaper 
press,  and  of  social  action,  has  ever  been  witnessd  elswhere : 


239 

tians,  and  abov  all,  Christian  ministers  of  New  England, 
bind  your  souls,  with  a  strength  and  depth  of  obligation  far 
beyond  that  which  binds  the  patriot,  philanthropist,  and  scho- 

and  so  little  can  the  experience  of  any  other  age  or  people,  shed 
light  on  the  subject,  that  it  only  furnishes  contrasts.  We  our- 
selvs,  even  whilst  under  their  influence,  hav  but  a  faint  con- 
ception of  what  they  ar  destin'd  to  accomplish.  We  ar  so  ac- 
customd  to  look  abroad,  and  especialy  to  the  ancients,  for  stand- 
ards and  tests,  that  we  ar  comparativly  blind  to  the  causes  of 
our  actual  condition  and  wonderful  progress.  But  this  foreign, 
this  antiquated  influence,  is  yielding  apace  to  a  development 
of  national,  social,  and  individual  resources,  without  precedent 
or  paralel  in  the  history  of  man. 

This  people,  however,  has  yet  to  learn,  that  the  maxim  of 
Solon  is  equaly  the  maxim  of  nations  and  individuals.  "  Know 
thyself,"  is  indispensable  to  national  as  it  is  to  individual  im- 
provement, in  knowlege,  virtue,  and  happiness.  Self-govern^ 
ment,  the  distinguishing  feature  of  this  country,  its  glory  and 
safeguard,  depends,  after  all,  in  a  nation,  as  in  an  individual,  on 
self-knowlege.  And  yet  so  little  is  this  realiz'd,  that  while  our 
governments  and  states  of  society,  our  domestic  political  rela- 
tions, our  constitutional  law,  our  history  and  revolutions,  our 
prospects  and  destiny,  and  our  relations  and  dutys  to  the  world, 
ar  so  different  from  those  of  other  conntrys,  scarcely  any  attention 
is  paid  to  them  as  a  part  of  education.  More  time  is  frequently 
devoted  to  a  single  classic  or  mathematical  work,  than  to  all 
subjects  peculiarly  American.  Cresar,  Livy,  and  Tacitus  ar 
studyd  with  laborious  attention,  as  tho'  an  American  could  not 
be  an  enlightend  and  valuable  citizen  without  them,  while  the 
history  of  his  own  state  and  nation  is  uterly  neglected.  To 
Cicero's  orations  on  Cataline  ar  devoted  more  time  and  pains, 
than  to  the  Federalist ;  yet  what  comparison  is  there  between 

he  value  of  those  and  this,  to  the  American  citizen  1  Who  ever 
heard  of  studying  an  American  speech  as  a  part  of  education  1 
and  yet  I  cannot  doubt,  that  an  intimate  acquaintance  with  the 
best  American  speeches,  from  the  revolution  down  to  the  pre- 
sent time,  is  incomparably  more  valuable   to  the  American, 


240 

lar  ?  Yours  is,  indeed,  a  glorious  destiny,  an  inestimable  heri- 
tage; if  you  realiz,  in  all  your  tho'ts,  and  words,  and  deeds, 
the  truth,  power,  and  beauty  of  the  principles  of  peace.  You 

whether  as  a  public  or  private  man,  than  a  thorough  acquaintance 
with  Cicero  and  Demothenes.  And  I  build  this  opinion,  not 
only  on  their  peculiar  value  to  us  as  Americans,  but  on  their  in- 
trinsic merits.  To  instance  a  few  among  very  many,  I  scruple 
not  to  say,  that,  as  arguments,  the  speeches  of  Chief  Justice 
Marshall,  on  the  case  of  Jonathan  Robbins,  in  the  Hous  of  Re- 
presentativs  of  the  United  States,  and  of  Roger  Griswold,  in  the 
same  Hous,  on  the  Judiciary,  ar  not  surpassd  by  any  thing  in 
the  Greek  or  Roman ;  and,  as  orations,  they  hav  produced  no- 
thing, in  my  estimation,  superior  to  Ames's  speech  on  the  British 
treaty,  to  the  Plymouth  address  of  Mr.  Webster,  and  the  cen- 
tennial address  of  Mr.  Quincy. 

The  same  complaint  may  be  justly  made,  with  regard  to  Eng- 
lish history,  politics,  and  oratory.  They  ar  of  more  value  than 
all  that  Greece  and  Rome  hav  bequeath'd  us.  Mr.  Burke's 
speeches  (including  his  letter  on  the  French  revolution,  which 
may  be  regarded  as  the  most  solemn  and  eloquent  of  orations de- 
liverd  in  the  name  and  in  the  presence  of  all  Europe)  ar  alone 
of  more  consequence  to  an  American  ,than  the  whole  body  of 
Greek  and  Roman  eloquence.  I  would,  certainly,  rather  be  the 
author  of  them,  whether  I  regard  learning  and  philosophy,  or 
eloquence  and  taste,  than  all  the  orations  of  Cicero  and  Demos- 
thenes. Who  can  doubt,  that  to  be  well  read  in  the  best  Eng- 
lish speeches,  made  at  the  bar  and  in  parliment,  connected  with 
the  civil  and  political  history  of  England,  would  be  far  more 
useful  to  an  American,  in  public  or  private  life,  than  the  same 
knowlege  of  antiquity ;  and  yet,  who  has  ever  heard  of  studying 
English  eloquence  or  history,  or  the  English  constitution,  legal 
and  political,  as  a  part  of  our  education  1 

There  is  something  radicaly  wrong  in  all  this.  Our  whole 
system  of  education  is  the  very  revers  of  the  maxim,  "  Know 
thyself."  It  is  fitted  to  make  us  neither  Christians  nor  Ameri- 
cans; as  men  neither  wise  nor  well  inform'd  ;  as  citizens  neither 
instructed  as  to  our  rights  and  dutys,  nor  enlightend  as  to  our 


241 

ar  the  sacramental  host,  scatterd  evry  where  amidst  a  pe- 
culiar people,  zealous  of  good  works,  to  be  at  once,  the 
teachers,  friends,  and  living  examples  of  the  spirit  of  peace. 
On  your  fidelity,  firmnes,  and  consistency,  depend,  chiefly 
in  your  own  age  and  country,  and  not  a  little  in  all  others, 
the  triumph  of  those  principles.     Whilst  the  disciple,  and 

best  interests,  our  exalted  privileges  and  glorious  destiny.  What 
an  ilustration  is  afforded  by  a  single  subject — peace.  On  this, 
one  of  the  noblest  and  most  important  of  American  dutys,  our 
schemes  of  education  ar  uterly  barren.  And  yet  peace  is  in- 
dispensable to  the  preservation  of  our  liberty  and  union,  to  our 
happinesand  progres,  and  to  our  rightful  influence  in  the  world. 
He,  indeed,  is  not,  in  my  estimation  at  least,  a  good  citizen, .a 
wise  patriot,  an  enlightend  instructor,  who  does  not  teach  zeal- 
ously and  fearlesly,  that  the  sword  ought  never  to  be  drawn  in 
any  controversy  between  the  States  themselvs,  or  between  any 
of  them  and  the  National  Government.  Our  country  is  the  no- 
blest monument,  in  honor  of  religion,  liberty,  reason,  philan- 
thropy, duty,  and  usefulnes,  which  man  has  ever  reard.  Let 
that  monument  never  be  profan'd  and  poluted  by  American  blood, 
shed  within  our  borders  by  American  hands  in  civil  warfare. 
This  is  the  great  lesson  to  be  taught  to  our  children. 
With  it,  all  others  acquire  a  sanctity  and  energy  of  obligation, 
a  durable  and  incalculable  value,  a  harmony  and  perfection, 
otherwise  unattainable.  With  it  we  exhibit  to  the  world,  for  the 
first  time,  a  national  family  of  peaceful,  Christian  states,  under 
the  vow,  never  to  draw  the  sword  against  one  another. — Be  it 
then  our  inflexible  resolv,  equaly  wise,  humane,  and  pious,  that 
war  shall  never  be  known  within  our  borders. 

"  Light  is  the  robe  of  Peace,  yet  strong  to  save." 

But  we  shall  find,  if  ever  we  admit  it,  to  the  bitter  cost  of  our- 
selvs  and  our  children's  children — that  War 


" Is  the  black  and  melancholy  yew, 

That  strikes  into  the  grave  its  baleful  roots, 
And  prospers  on  the  dead. ." 

X 


242 

abov  all,  the  messenger  of  the  Prince  of  Peace,  shall  admire 
and  eulogize  war  and  warriors,  his  kingdom  can  never  come. 
Until  you  shall  sweep  away  all  their  unholy  influences,  now 
acting  in  so  many  various  forms  of  education  on  the  minds 
and  hearts  of  youth,  a  martial  spirit,  with  its  fals  standard 
of  pride,  courage,  glory,  and  honor,  with  its  disregard  of 
the  property,  happines,  and  lives  of  others,  must  still  pre- 
vail. Your  banner  is  the  cross  of  Calvary,  and  on  it  ar  in- 
scrib'd,  in  a  Saviour's  blood,  faith,  hope,  love,  humility,  for- 
givnes.  These  ar  the  elements  of  peace,  implacable  foes, 
triumphant  destroyers  of  war  and  the  warrior.  Arise  then, 
and  purify  yourselvs  from  the  stain  that  is  on  your  souls. 
Let  the  day  speedily  come,  when  the  compromise  with  war 
and  the  warrior,  which  has  dishonord  for  ages  the  disciples 
and  the  messengers  of  Jesus,  shall  hav  vanishd  forever 
from  New  England.  There  shall  the  Christian  world  be- 
hold the  noblest  monument  of  faith  and  love,  in  thousands  of 
churches  and  ministers,  without  an  apologist,  much  less  an 
advocate  for  war  and  the  warrior.  There  shall  then  be  dis- 
playd,  in  all  its  purity,  strength,  and  humility,  the  spirit  of 
self-sacrifice :  there,  the  eternal  truth,  the  invincible  power, 
the  awful  beauty  of  the  principles  of  peace :  there  the  loveli- 
nes  and  harmony,  the  purity  and  holines,  the  sublimity  and 
glory,  which  ar  destind  to  adorn  the  earthly  kingdom  of  the 
Prince  of  Peace. 


EXTRACTS 


DIFERENT  WRITINGS  OF  THOMAS  S.  GRIMKE, 


ENFORCING,  VINDICATING  AND  1LUSTRATING 


PRINCIPLES  OF  PEACE, 


EXTRACTS. 


EXTRACT 

From  the  Address  on  the  Character  and  Objects  of 
Science,  May,  1827. 

What  then  shall  be  our  destiny?  As  a  free  people,  it  is 
written  in  characters,  that  the  world  may  read,  from  the 
great  Lakes,  to  the  Gulf  of  Mexico,  from  the  Atlantic,  to 
the  Missouri.  As  an  educated,  investigating,  practical  peo- 
ple, it  is  recorded  in  letters  of  light,  on  the  counties  institu- 
tions for  social  and  individual  improvement,  that  bless  and 
adorn  our  land.  As  a  Christian  people,  it  stands  forth  in 
sculpturd  language,  on  the  thousands  of  temples,  which 
flourish  side  by  side,  in  harmony  and  emulation,  within  our 
happy  borders.  As  a  peaceful  people,  it  is  registerd,  as 
with  the  pen  of  prophecy,  on  our  national,  social,  individual 
character;  on  our  sens  of  justice,  and  our  sentiments  of 
philanthropy  ;  on  our  consciences — as  Christians ;  our  prin- 
ciples— as  Americans ;  our  feelings — as  men.  As  a  free,  as 
an  educated,  as  a  Christian,  as  a  peaceful  people,  I  experi- 
ence the  settled,  the  delightful  assurance,  that  our  country 
shall  liv  to  the  end  of  time.  As  soon  would  I  believ,  that 
there  is  power  on  earth,  "  to  pluck  up  the  iron-bound  shores 
x2 


246 

of  New  England,  with  all  their  towns,  and  plant  them  on  the 
banks  of  the  Miami;" — As  soon  would  I  believ,  that  the 
commonalty  of  England  will  again  pass  under  the  iron  yoke 
of  the  feudal  system :  as  soon  would  I  believ,  that  the  good- 
ly heritage  of  the  Pilgrims  can  ever  be  another  Sahara,  or 
that  the  pine  forest  of  the  south  can  become  the  land  of  the 
hill,  the  vally  and  the  brook,  as  to  believ  that  this  people 
shall  ever  ceas  to  be  free,  educated,  Christian,  peaceful. 

Let  the  age  of  miracles  return,  and  I  may  despair  of  the 
fortunes  of  my  country,  as  free,  educated,  Christian,  peace- 
ful. Let  that  age  begin  with  the  day,  when  the  sons  of  God 
shall  present  themselves  before  him,  and  Satan  shall  again 
be  permitted  to  lay  waste  the  patrimony,  and  smite  with 
Egyptian  plagues,  the  hearts  of  the  faithful.  Let  the  Arch- 
angel, terrible  and  mighty,  tho'  fallen,  go  forth  to  hurl  down 
on  our  devoted  land,  the  tempest  of  his  wrath  and  malice. 
Let  him  afflict  us,  as  Job  was  smitten,  in  flocks  and  herds, 
in  children  and  person.  Such  trials  to  a  Christian  people, 
strengthen  faith,  and  animate  hope.  Such  trials  blast  not  a 
free  people  with  the  paroxysms  of  despair ;  but  summon 
forth  into  being,  the  unconquerable  energys  of  patriotism. 
Such  trials  to  an  educated  people,  open  the  way  to  hidden 
springs  of  knowledge  and  improvement.  Such  trials  to  a 
peaceful  people,  only  enhance  their  love  of  peace ;  for  the 
grief-stricken  heart  flees  to  retirement  and  tranquility.  At 
the  overshadowings  of  such  aflictions,  I  should  never  tremble 
for  my  country,  much  less  should  I  despair;  for  the  spirit  of 
the  martyr  and  confessor  would  arise,  and  shine,  more  and 
more,  unto  the  perfect  day.  But  let  the  arch  fiend,  in  the 
delirium  of  ferocious  malignity  and  ruthles  envy,  strip  us  of 
the  religion  of  the  reformers ;  of  our  freedom,  our  education, 
our  love  of  peace.  Let  him  erase  from  our  memory,  the 
recollections  of  a  free  and  noble  ancestry,  the  prospect  of  a 
future,  enrich'd  and  endeard  by  all  that  is  precious  in  glory, 


247 

and  lovely  in  virtue.  Let  him  sweep  from  our  land,  as  with 
the  besom  of  destruction,  the  temples  of  the  Most  High,  the 
seats  of  science,  the  courts  of  justice,  and  the  halls  of  legis- 
lation. Let  the  palsy  of  death  rest  on  the  tongue  of  the 
priest  and  teacher,  of  the  orator,  the  patriot,  the  Statesman. 
Let  the  angel  of  peace  walk  no  more  abroad,  thro'  all  our 
borders,  dispensing  the  mild  blessings  of  national  tranquility, 
and  scatering  the  treasures  of  her  love,  by  the  fireside  of 
home,  and  in  the  circles  of  friendship.  Let  such  a  day  come, 
and  the  blacknes  of  despair  shall  be  our  portion.  Then, 
indeed,  would  be  fulfilld  in  us,  the  visions  of  prophecy. 
"  Let  all  the  inhabitants  of  the  land  tremble,  in  the  day  of 
darknes  and  of  gloomines,  of  clouds  and  of  thick  dark- 
nes."  "  I  will  cause  the  sun  to  go  down  at  noon,  and  I  will 
darken  the  earth  in  a  clear  day ;  and  I  will  turn  your  feasts 
into  mourning,  and  all  your  songs  into  lamentation,  and  I 
will  make  it  as  the  mourning  of  an  only  son."  But  thanks 
be  to  God,  faith  believs  and  hope  rejoices,  that  such  a  day 
will  never  come  for  us.  The  mind  holds  fast  the  convic- 
tion, the  heart  cleavs  to  the  persuasion,  that  we  shall  never 
be  otherwise  than  free;  educated,  Christian,  peaceful. 


EXTRACT 

From  the  Speech  in  the  Senate  of  South  Carolina,  on  tke 
Tariff  and  State  Sovreignty,  December,  1828. 

I  hav  heard,  with  pain  and  sorrow,  the  opinion,  that  in 
the  present  crisis,  it  well  becomes  South  Carolina  to  approach 
her  sister  states,  and  the  National  Government,  with  the 
sword  in  one  hand,  and  the  Oliv  Branch  in  the  other : 
that  she  walks  in  the  paths  of  honor  and  duty,  when  she 
offers  the  alternativ  of  War  or  Peace.  I  may  admire  the 
chivalry  and  franknes  of  the  sentiment,  but  I  cannot  depre- 
cate too  much  a  feeling  so  unnatural,  so  indiscreet,  so  un- 
wise. We  ar,  and  I  trust  we  shall  ever  continue  to  be,  one 
family,  bound  together  by  the  ties  of  a  common  ancestry, 
eminent  for  the  cultivation  of  peace  at  home,  and  only  glo- 
rious in  foreign  wars.  Not  one  of  these  States  has  ever  yet 
shed  the  blood  of  a  brother,  notwithstanding  the  collisions  of 
interest,  and  the  exasperation  of  angry  passions.  This,  per- 
haps, is  the  most  solemn  and  important  lesson  which  the 
rest  of  the  world  can  learn  from  us  :  And  shall  we  not  profit 
by  it  ourselvs  ?  Be  it,  then,  our  unchangable  feeling,  our 
irrevocable  purpose,  as  it  is  our  holyest  duty  and  highest  in- 
terest, that  the  sword  never  shall  be  drawn  against  the  na- 
tional government  or  a  sister  state.  Let  the  people  of  this 
country,  in  the  east  and  the  west,  in  the  north  and  the  south, 
engrave  this  sentiment  on  the  table  of  their  hearts,  and  reve- 
rence it  as  a  religious  truth.  Let  them  resolv,  and  call  God 
to  witness  the  vow,  that  the  voice  of  a  brother's  blood  shall 


249 

never  cry  from  the  ground  against  them.  To  liv  and  to  die 
in  this  sentiment,  is  recomended  by  interest,  advis'd  by  wis- 
dom, and  commanded  by  duty.  Let  us  take  an  ilustration 
from  the  circle  of  domestic  life.  What  son  can  think,  with- 
out horror,  of  unsheathing  the  sword  against  a  father,  how- 
ever unjust  and  even  tyranical  ?  What  brother  can  brook 
the  tho't,  that  he  could  ever  be  driven,  by  any  extremity  of 
injury  or  cruelty,  to  shed  his  brother's  blood  1  Nature,  re- 
ligion, public  and  private  duty,  the  social  feeling,  the  peace 
of  familys,  hav  ordaind  these  irrevocable  laws.  Even  the 
barbarous  code  of  fals  honor,  tho'  it  spares  the  friend,  the 
neighbor,  the  acquaintance,  no  more  than  the  stranger  and 
the  enemy,  has  respected  the  sanctuary  of  a  houshold.  And 
shall  not  this  family  of  states  reverence  the  commandments 
of  a  holyer  and  nobler  law,  to  them  the  only  tru  law  of  ho- 
nor and  virtue,  of  enduring  happines,  peace  and  improve- 
ment ?  Let  them  banish,  then,  forever  from  their  intercourse, 
the  language  of  the  warrior,  and  all  the  thoughts  and  feel- 
ings, and  associations,  which  ar  crowded  together  in  that 
single  expression — War.  Is  one  of  them  insulted  by  a 
thoughtles  unfeeling  brother  ?  Let  him  remember  that  vio- 
lence must  aggravate,  but  cannot  cure  the  evil.  Ar  some 
the  victims  of  selfishnes  and  injustice?  They  would  do  well 
to  consider  that  angry  words  and  intemperate  conduct  can 
avail  nothing,  and  may  produce  greater  injurys.  Ar  any 
the  sufferers  by  a  brother's  usurpation  or  abuse  of  authority  ? 
What  can  threats  and  denunciations  do,  but  to  exasperate 
the  guilty  against  the  innocent  ?  Let  the  nations  of  Europe 
employ  war,  and  its  ministers  of  wrath  to  chastise  the  inso- 
lent, to  exact  justice  from  the  unjust,  and  to  humble  tyrany  ; 
but  let  the  people  of  each  state,  under  evry  temptation  of 
trial,  arising  from  the  national  government,  or  other  states, 
rely  only  on  the  arguments  of  wisdom  and  moderation,  and 
on  the  eloquence  of  friendship  and  forbearance.  Our  country 


250 

is  emphaticaly  a  land  of  regulated  liberty,  of  laws  and  prin- 
ciples. Our  government  is  pre-eminently  the  government 
of  the  people,  the  offspring  of  mutual  concessions  and  com- 
mon interests.  There  is,  in  the  great  body  of  the  citizens  of 
evry  state,  a  fund  of  good  sens,  of  equity  and  candor, 
which,  in  the  course  of  years,  will  assuredly  do  that  which 
is  right.  Let  us  never  distrust,  much  less  despair  of  them. 
What  though,  for  a  season,  we  may  be  revil'd,  or  injur'd, 
by  sister  states,  or  be  oppressd  by  the  power  of  the  general 
government  ?  What  though  we  may  see,  in  our  judgment, 
with  absolute  certainty,  that  we  ar  the  victims  of  sectional 
prejudice,  or  local  interests,  of  fraud,  intrigue,  and  corrup- 
tion ?  Let  us  never  distrust  our  country,  nor  despair  of  the 
republic?  On  the  contrary,  let  us  cling  fast  to  the  hope, 
that  Americans  will,  at  the  last,  respect  truth  and  reason, 
and  yield  to  manly,  temperate,  candid  remonstrance,  and 
brotherly  expostulation.  Let  us,  then,  before  we  approach 
the  sanctuary  of  our  parent  government,  banish  the  feelings 
of  anger  from  our  hearts,  the  language  of  menace  from  our 
lips,  and  the  expression  of  resentment  from  our  countenance. 
Before  we  address  the  august  assembly  of  sister  states,  let 
us  remember  that  we  cannot  honor  and  respect  them  too 
highly,  nor  act  ourselves  with  too  much  dignity,  self-reve- 
rence and  moderation.  Before  we  enter  the  sacred  presence 
of  our  country,  let  us  cast  far  away  the  sword,  and  speak  to 
her  only  in  the  spirit  of  faith  and  of  hope,  of  peace  and  of 
love. 


EXTRACT 


From  the  Address  at  the  Dedication  of  the  Depository  for 
Bibles,  $c.  April,  1829. 


Let  me  rather  turn  to  the  excelent  founder  of  Sunday- 
schools,  and  offer  to  the  excelent  Robert  Raikes,  the  homage 
of  virtuous  admiration  and  gratitude.  ComparM  to  him, 
what  ar  the  heroes  of  ancient  and  modern  times,  the  ilustri- 
ous  statesmen,  the  founders  of  empires!  Who  that  compre- 
hends the  true  dignity  of  man,  his  solemn  responsibility  to 
God,  and  his  fellow  men,  the  blessednes  of  doing  good,  the 
beauty  of  holines,  the  pure,  elevated,  noble  wisdom  of  love 
to  God  and  man,  would  for  a  moment  compare  with  Robert 
Raikes,  Alexander  or  Caesar,  Alaric  or  Attilla,  Wolsey  or 
Richelieu,  Charles  the  XII.  or  Bonaparte !  To  ilustrate  this, 
let  us  draw  a  paralel  between  the  benevolent  author  of  Sun- 
day-schools, and  the  lawgiver  of  Sparta,  and  the  founder  of 
Rome. 

Lycurgus  exclaim'd  as  he  rode  thro'  the  country  of  Laco- 
nia,  that  it  lookd  like  the  patrimony  of  brothers.  It  was, 
indeed,  the  patrimony  of  a  family;  but  that  family  was  de- 
graded and  brutalizd  by  institutions,  whose  sole  object  was 
the  destruction  of  their  fellow  creatures.  Sparta  regarded 
peace,  the  natural  condition  of  man,  as  disgraceful ;  war,  his 
unnatural  state,  as  honorable.  The  Spartan  had  no  feelings, 
no  sentiments,  but  those  of  a  soldier ;  no  conception  of  glory, 
but  as  military  fame:  no  happines  or  dutys  at  home,  but  in 


252 

warlike  education,  no  joy  or  ambition  abroad,  but  in  the 
camp,  the  march,  or  the  battel-field.  To  receiv  his  wounds 
in  front ;  to  die  sword  in  hand ;  to  be  carryed  homeward  upon 
his  shield,  were  the  limit  of  his  desires,  the  highest  satisfac- 
tion, of  which  he  was  capable.  The  character  of  man  was 
stretchd  on  the  iron  bed  of  Procrustes ;  that  of  woman  was 
degraded,  and  her  tendernes,  delicacy,  and  lovelines,  were 
broken  as  on  the  wheel  of  a  ruthles  tyrany ;  while  the  in- 
fant, if  unfit  for  the  bloody  work  of  destruction,  was  cast  out 
to  perish  in  the  fields.  Under  such  institutions,  the  Spartan 
was  a  savage,  scarcely  more  elevated  than  the  Indian  of 
North  America.  Such  were  the  boasted  institutes  of  Lycur- 
gus ;  and  what  a  commentary  on  the  character  of  them  and 
their  author,  is  found  in  the  fact,  that  he  should  hav  cheated 
the  people,  by  a  miserable  trick,  into  their  perpetual  observ- 
ance. 

Let  us  now  turn  to  the  founder  of  the  Roman  monarchy. 
In  him,  we  behold  a  man,  who  slew  his  brother  with  his  own 
hand,  who  violated  the  sacred  laws  of  hospitality,  who  invei- 
gled by  fraud  the  Sabine  women  into  his  power,  and  seizd 
them  by  force.  What  other  morality,  indeed,  could  hav 
been  expected  of  a  fratricide,  the  captain  of  robbers,  and 
murderers,  and  outlaws !  Such  was  the  man  v/ho  laid  the 
foundation  of  Rome,  calld  in  the  boastful  language  of  her 
people,  the  Eternal  City.  And  what  were  her  institutions, 
from  beginning  to  end,  but  those  of  war?  What  was  her 
sole  employment,  from  the  cradle  to  the  grave,  but  rapine 
and  murder?  She  died,  as  she  had  livd — by  the  sword  ;  and 
as  she  had  carryed  fire  and  carnage,  with  unrelenting  fury 
and  insatiable  ambition,  into  all  the  neighboring  countrys, 
she  perishd  at  last,  not  in  the  lists  of  chivalry,  with  the  gal- 
lant, the  civilizd,  and  the  polishd,  but  by  the  hands  of  bar- 
barians, who  rolld  backward  over  the  Alps  upon  her  beauti- 
ful Italy,  the  deluge  of  blood,  which  had  overflowd  Helvetia 


253 

and  Germany,  Gaul,  and  Belgium,  and  Britain.  Such  has 
been  the  fate  of  evry  people,  with  scarcely  an  exception ! 
How  just  and  awful  ar  the  judgments  of  God !  for  all  of 
them  arose  and  flourishd  by  rapin  and  bloodshed.  Shall  I 
be  told  that  Rome  carry'd  her  arts  with  her  arms,  and  civi- 
liz'd  the  independent  states,  which  she  enslav'd  ?  What  then 
shall  we  say  to  the  thief  and  assassin,  who  should  act  in 
like  manner?  Shall  we  regard  it  as  a  merit,  that  after  slay- 
ing the  parent,  they  hav  educated  the  child  out  of  his  father's 
property?  After  invading  the  peace  of  a  family,  laying 
waste  its  heritage,  seizing  all  its  property,  and  murdering 
or  imprisoning  its  natural  protectors,  is  it  matter  of  commen- 
dation, that  they  should  restore  and  improve  agriculture  and 
the  arts,  out  of  its  own  wealth,  more  especialy  since  they 
deliverd  that  family  to  the  charge  of  oppressiv  strangers? 
Such  were  the  principles,  and  such  the  conduct  of  kingly,  of 
republican,  of  imperial  Rome.  Romulus,  then,  was  the 
founder  of  a  state,  whose  whole  life  of  twelve  hundred  years, 
was  devoted  to  carnage  and  rapin,  Lycurgus  was  the 
author  of  a  petty  scheme  of  violence  and  destruction ;  Romu- 
lus of  a  vast  system  of  selfishnes  and  ambition,  of  fraud, 
bloodshed  and  ruin.  Each  had  the  merit,  and  only  the 
merit  of  creating  a  nation  of  murderers  and  plunderers. 


EXTRACT 

From  an  Address  before  the  Richland  School,  Decern.' 
ber,  1829. 

There  is  one  consideration  of  vast  importance  in  deter- 
mining the  best  character  of  a  scheme  of  education  :  and  it 
hears  directly  on  the  question  of  the  comparativ  merits  of 
the  Christian  and  classical  standards.  It  is  this.  The  spirit 
of  the  Gospel  is  essentialy  the  spirit  of  peace  and  humility, 
of  love  and  forbearance.  It  is  an  amiable,  conciliating, 
philanthropic  spirit.  It  is  full  of  moral  dignity,  and  beauty, 
and  courage.  It  is  essentialy  the  spirit  of  duty,  the  spirit  of 
God  himself.  But  what  is  the  spirit  that  livs  and  moves 
thro'out  the  classical  models?  It  is  the  spirit  of  war,  fo- 
reign and  civil,  the  spirit  of  ambition,  and  pride,  of  hatred, 
contempt,  and  oppression.  It  is  a  blood-thirsty,  unforgiving, 
intolerant  spirit.  Take  from  the  Iliad  or  the  iEneid  its  mi- 
litary scenes,  and  achievments,  and  heroes,  and  the  poem  is 
in  ruins.  Take  the  like  from  the  Scripture  Epic  of  Milton, 
and  the  great,  the  mighty  whole  is  scarcely  more  impaird 
than  "  Jerusalem  Delivered,"  by  discarding  the  Episode  of 
Olindo  and  Sophronia.  Take  the  like  from  the  classic  his- 
torians, and  the  sun-bright  history  of  Greece  and  Rome  "  in 
dim  eclipse,  disastrous  twilight  sheds."  But  take  the  same 
from  the  history  of  Europe,  since  the  Reformation,  and  espe- 
cialy  from  the  history  of  England,  and  of  these  United 
States,  and  that  remains  which  we  look  for  in  vain  among 
the  Ancients,  political,  constitutional,  commercial,  literary, 
and  religious  history,  the  history  of  principles  and  institu- 


255 

tions,  of  society  and  government.  War  is  the  very  soul  of 
poetry  and  history  in  the  classics.  Does  it  not  then  become 
us  to  abandon  them,  as  fit  means  of  instruction  for  youth  ; 
unless  we  mean  practicaly  to  deny  the  incomparable  supe- 
riority of  the  peaceful  spirit  of  the  New  Testament  ?  Can 
we  doubt  that  the  warlike  spirit,  which  has  desolated  Europe 
for  eighteen  hundred  years,  in  spite  of  the  religion  of  Jesus, 
is  to  be  ascribed,  in  a  good  measure,  to  the  extravagant  ad- 
miration of  the  classics,  to  the  imitation  of  Greek  and  Roman, 
instead  of  Christian  heroes,  and'  to  the  unchristian  charac- 
ter of  general  education  ?  Christianity  has  warr'd  in  vain 
against  military  ambition  and  military  glory ;  since  evry 
educated  man  has  been  thoro'iy  imbu'd  with  the  military, 
that  ruling  spirit  of  Greece  and  Rome.  Banish  this  spirit, 
and  we  shall  see  and  hear  less  of  war  and  more  of  peace, 
less  of  heroes  and  more  of  philanthropists,  less  of  warriors 
and  more  of  statesmen,  less  of  fals  glory  and  honor,  and 
more  of  tru,  less  of  the  spirit  of  the  French  revolution',  and 
more  of  the  spirit  of  our  own.  I  rejoice  that  the  spirit  of  the 
age,  and  the  spirit  of  our  own  country  especialy,  ar  becoming 
more  and  more  rational,  peaceful.  Christian.  Let  this  great 
change  in  education  be  made,  and  we  may  rest  assur'd,  that 
the  rulers  and  politicians  of  all  nations  will  be 


bent  on  higher  views, 


To  civilize  the  rude  unpolished  world, 
And  lay  it  under  the  restraint  of  laws; 
To  make  man  mild  and  sociable  to  man; 
To  cultivate  the  wild  licentious  savage 
With  wisdom,  discipline  and  liberal  arts; 
Tii'  embellishments  of  life  — . 


EXTRACT 

From  the  Oration  before  the  Phi  Beta  Kappa  Society  of 
Yale  College,  Sept.  1830. 

Nor,  gentlemen,  while  we  remember  our  fellowship,  and 
our  common  parentage,  let  us  forget  our  common  inheritance, 
our  country.  We  cannot  honor  our  country  with  too  deep 
a  reverence;  we  cannot  love  her  with  an  afection,  too  pure 
and  fervent ;  we  cannot  serv  her  with  an  energy  of  purpose 
or  a  faithflilnes  of  zeal,  too  stedfast  and  ardent.  And  what 
is  Our  country?  It  is  not  the  East,  with  her  hills  and  her 
vallys,  with  her  counties  sails,  and  the  rocky  ramparts  of 
her  shores.  It  is  not  the  North,  with  her  thousand  villages, 
and  her  harvest-home,  with  her  frontiers  of  the  lake  and  the 
ocean.  It  is  not  the  West,  with  her  forest-sea  and  her 
inland-isles,  with  her  luxuriant  expanses,  cloth'd  in  the  ver- 
dant corn,  with  her  beautiful  Ohio,  and  her  majestic  Missouri. 
Nor  is  it  yet  the  South,  opulent  in  the  mimic  snow  of  the 
cotton,  in  the  rich  plantations  of  the  rustling  cane,  and  in  the 
golden  robes  of  the  rice-field.  What  ar  these  but  the  sister 
family  s  of  one  greater,  better, holy  er  family,  our  country? 
I  come  not  here  to  speak  the  dialect,  or  to  giv  the  counsels 
of  the  patriot^statesman.  But  I  come,  a  patriot-scholar,  to 
Vindicate  the  rights,  and  to  plead  for  the  interests  of  Ameri- 
can literature.  And  be  assur'd,  gentlemen,  that  we  cannot, 
as  patriot  scholars,  think  too  highly  of  that  country,  or  sacri- 
fice too  much  for  her.  And  let  us  never  forget,  let  us  rather 
remember  with  a  religious  aw  that  the  union  of  these  States 
is  indispensable  to  our  Literature,  as  it  is  to  our  national 


257 

independence  and  civil  libertys,  to  our  prosperity,  happines, 
and  improvement.  If,  indeed,  we  desire  to  behold  a  litera- 
ture like  that,  which  has  sculptured,  with  such  energy  of  ex- 
pression, which  has  painted  so  faithfuly  and  vividly,  the 
crimes,  the  vices,  the  folly s  of  ancient  and  modern  Europe  : 
if  we  desire  that  our  land  should  furnish  for  the  orator  and 
the  novelist,  for  the  painter  and  the  poet,  age  after  age,  the 
wild  and  romantic  scenery  of  war ;  the  glittering  march  of 
armys  and  the  revelry  of  the  camp ;  the  shrieks  and  blas- 
phemys,  and  all  the  horrors  of  the  battel  field;  the  desolation 
of  the  harvest,  and  the  burning  cottage ;  the  storm,  the  sack, 
and  the  ruin  of  citys :  If  we  desire  to  unchain  the  furious 
passions  of  jealousy  and  selfishnes,  of  hatred,  revenge  and 
ambition,  those  lions,  that  now  sleep  harmles  in  their  den: 
If  we  desire,  that  the  lake,  the  river,  the  ocean,  should  blush 
with  the  blood  of  brothers  ;  that  the  winds  should  waft  from 
the  land  to  the  sea,  from  the  sea  to  the  land,  the  roar  and 
the  smoke  of  battel ;  that  the  very  mountain-tops  should  be- 
come altars  for  the  sacrifice  of  brothers ;  if  we  desire  that 
these,  and  such  as  these — the  elements  to  an  incredible  ex- 
tent, of  the  literature  of  the  old" world — should  be  the  elements 
of  our  literature,  then,  but  then  only,  let  us  hurl  from  its 
pedestal  the  majestic  'statue  of  our  union,  and  scater  its 
fragments  over  all  our  land.  But,  if  we  covet  for  our  coun- 
try the  noblest,  purest,  lovelyest  literature,  the  world  has  ever 
seen ;  such  a  literature,  as  shall  honor  God,  and  bless  man- 
kind :  a  literature,  whose  smiles  might  play  upon  an  angel's 
face,  whose  tears  *'  would  not  stain  an  angel's  cheek;"  then 
let  us  cling  to  the  union  of  these  States,  with  a  patriot's  love, 
with  a  scholar's  enthusiasm,  with  a  Christian's  hope.  In 
her  heavenly  character,  as  a  holocaust  self-sacrific'd  to  God  ; 
at  the  height  of  her  glory,  as  the  ornament  of  a  free,  edu. 
cated,  peaceful,  Christian  people,  American  literature  will 
find  that  the  intelectual  spirit  is  her  very  tree  of 

LIFE,  AND  THAT  UNION,  HER  GARDEN  OF  PARADISE. 

Y2 


EXTRACT 

From  the  Sunday  School  Jubilee  Address,  Sept,  1 831 . 

ft  is  but  a  few  years,  since  we  beheld  the  most  singular 
and  memorable  pageant  in  the  annals  of  time.  It  was  a 
pageant  more  sublime  and  afecting  than  the  progress  of 
Elizabeth  thro'  England,  after  the  defeat  of  the  Armada; 
than  the  return  of  Francis  1st.  from  a  Spanish  prison  to  his 
own  beautiful  France  ;  than  the  daring,  the  rapid  march  of 
the  conqueror  at^Austerlitz  from  Frejus  to  Paris.  It  was  a 
pageant,  indeed,  rivald  only  in  the  elements  of  the  grand 
and  the  pathetic,  by  the  journy  oPour  own  Washington 
thro'  the  different  States.  Need  I  say,  that  I  allude  to 
the  visit  of  Lafayette  to  America  ?  But  Lafayette  returnd 
to  the  land  of  the  dead,  rather  than  of  the  living.  How 
many  who  had  fought  with  him,  in  the  war  of '76,  had  died 
in  arms,  and  lay  buryd  in  the  grave  of  the  soldier  or  the 
sailor !  How  many,  who  had  surviv'd  the  perils  of  battel,  on 
the  land  and  the  ocean,  had  expir'd  on  the  death-bed  of 
peace,  in  the  arms  of  mother,  sister,  daughter*  wife!  Those 
who  surviv'd,  to  celebrate  with  him  the  jubilee  of  '25,  were 
stricken  in  years,  and  hoary -headed,  many  of  them  infirm  in 
health,  many  the  victims  of  poverty,  or  misfortune,  or  afflic- 
tion. And,  how  venerable  that  patriarch  company,  how 
sublime  their  gathering  thro'  all  the  land,  how  joyful 
their  welcome,  how  afecting  their  farewel  to  that  beloved 


259 

stranger!  Yet  a  little  while,  and  he  and  they  shall  be 
gatherd  to  their  Fathers,  in  the  fulnes^  of  years.  The  pa- 
geant has  fled ;  the  very  materials  that  gave  it  such  depth  of 
interest,  ar  rapidly  perishing:  and  a  humble,  perhaps  a 
nameles  grave,  shall  hold  the  last  soldier  of  the  revolution. 
And  shall  they  ever  meet  again  1  Shall  the  patriots  and 
soldiers  of  '76,  the  immortal  band,  as  history  styles  them, 
meet  again  in  the  amaranthin  bowers  of  spotles  purity,  of 
perfect  bliss,  of  eternal  glory  ?  Shall  theirs  be  the  Chris- 
tian's heaven,  the  kingdom  of  the  Redeemer?  The  heathen 
points  to  his  fabulous  elysium,  as  the  paradise  of  the  soldier 
and  the  sage.  But  the  Christian  bows  down,  with  tears 
and  sighs,  for  he  knows  that  not  many  of  the  patriots,  and 
statesmen,  and  warriors  of  Christian  lands,  ar  the  disciples 
of  Jesus. 

But  we  turn  from  Lafayette,  the  favourit  of  the  old  and 
the  new  world,  to  the  peaceful  benevolence,  the  unambitious 
achievments  of  Robert  Raikes.  Let  us  imagin  him  to  hav 
been  still  alive,  and  to  hav  visited  our  land  to  celebrate  with 
us  this  year  of  Jubilee.  No  national  ship  would  hav  been 
offerd  to  bear  him,  a  nation's  guest,  in  the  pride  of  the  star- 
spangled -banner,  from  the  bright  shores  of  the  rising,  to  the 
brighter  shores  of  the  setting-sun.  No  cannon  would  hav 
haild  him  in  the  stern  language  of  the  battel  field,  the  for- 
tunate champion  of  freedom  in  Europe  and  America.  No 
martial  music,  would  hav  welcomd  him  in  notes  of  rap- 
ture, as  they  rolld  along  the  Atlantic,  and  echo'd  thro'  the 
v ally  of  the  Mississippi.  No  military  procession  would 
hav  heralded  his  way  thro'  crowded  streets,  thick  set  with 
the  banner  and  the  plume,  the  glittering  saber  and  the 
polishd  bayonet.  No  citys  would  hav  calld  forth  beauty 
and  fashion,  wealth  and  rank,  to  honor  him  in  the  ball-room 
and  theater.  No  states  would  hav  escorted  him  from 
boundary  to  boundary,  nor  hav  sent  their  chief  magistrates 


260 

to  do  him  homage.  No  national  liberality  would  hav 
allotted  to  him  a  nobleman's  domain  and  princely  treasures. 
No  national  gratitude  would  hav  haild  him,  in  the  capitol 
itself,  the  nation's  guest,  because  the  nation's  benefactor ; 
and  hav  consecrated  a  battel  ship,  in  memory  of  his  wounds, 
and  his  gallantry. 

Not  such  would  hav  been  the  reception  of  Robert  Raikes : 
In  the  land  of  the  pilgrims,  and  of  Penn,  of  the  Catholic,  and 
the  Cavalier,  and  the  Hugonot.  And  who  does  not  rejoice, 
that  it  would  be  impossible  thus  to  welcome  this  primitiv 
Christian,  the  Founder  of  Sunday  Schools.  His  heralds 
would  be  the  preachers  of  the  gospel,  and  the  eminent  in 
piety,  benevolence  and  zeal.  His  procession  would  number 
in  its  ranks,  the  messengers  of  the  cross  and  the  disciples  of 
the  Savior,  Sunday  School  teachers,  and  white-rob'd 
scholars.  The  temples  of  the  Most  High  would  be  the 
scenes  of  his  triumph.  Homage  and  gratitude  to  him,  would 
be  anthems  of  prais  and  thanksgiving  to  God.  Parents 
would  honor  him  as  more  than  a  brother :  children  would 
reverence  him  as  more  than  a  Father.  The  faltering  words 
of  age,  the  firm  and  sober  voice  of  manhood,  the  silvery 
notes  of  youth,  would  bless  him  as  a  Christian  patron.  The 
wise  and  good  would  acknowlege  him  evry  where,  as  a  na- 
tional benefactor,  as  a  patriot  even  to  a  land  of  strangers. 
He  would  hav  come  a  messenger  of  peace,  to  a  land  of 
peace.  No  images  of  camps  and  sieges,  and  battels,  no 
agonys  of  the  dying  and  wounded,  no  shouts  of  victory,  or 
processions  of  triumph  would  mingle  with  the  recolections 
of  the  multitudes  who  welcomd  him.  They  would  mourn 
over  no  common  dangers,  trials  and  calamitys;  for  the  road 
of  duty  has  been  to  them,  the  path  of  pleasantnes,  the  way 
of  peace.  Their  memory  of  the  past  would  be  rich  in 
gratitude  to  God  and  love  to  man :  their  enjoyment  of  the 
present  would  be  a  prelude  to  heavenly  bibs ;  their  prospects 


261 

of  the  future,  bright  and  glorious  as  faith  and  hope.  No  as- 
sociations with  this  world  would  awaken  the  sigh  of  regret 
or  the  tear  of  repentance :  and  all  their  sympathys  with  an 
eternal  state  would  be  purify'd  and  ennobled  by  the  contem- 
plation of  saints,  and  seraphs,  and  archangels. 

Such  was  the  reception  of  Lafayette,  the  warrior;  such 
would  be  that  of  Robert  Raikes,  the  Howard  of  the  Christian 
Church.  And  which  is  the  nobler  benefactor,  patriot,  and 
philanthropist?  Mankind  may  admire  and  extol  Lafayette 
more  than  the  Founder  of  Sunday  Schools:  Poetry  and  Elo- 
quence, Painting  and  Sculpture  may  celebrate  his  virtues,  and 
History  enrich  her  gallery  of  paintings  with  the  story  of  his 
achievments.  The  statesman  and  the  philosopher  may  de- 
light to  estimate  his  influence  on  the  fortunes  of  the  Ameri- 
can Republic,  and  of  the  Gallic  Monarchy,  and  to  trace 
thro'  them  his  control  over  the  destinys  of  the  world.  But 
religion,  philanthropy,  and  enlightend  common  sens,  must 
ever  esteem  Robert  Raikes  the  superior  of  Lafayette.  His 
ar  the  virtues,  the  services,  the  sacrifices  of  a  more  enduring 
and  exalted  order  of  being.  His  counsels  and  triumphs  be- 
long less  to  time  than  to  eternity.  The  fame  of  Lafayette 
is  of  this  world,  the  glory  of  Robert  Raikes  is  of  the  Re- 
deemer's everlasting,  kingdom.  Lafayette  has  livd  chiefly 
for  his  own  age,  and  chiefly  for  his  and  our  country.  But 
Robert  Raikes  has  livd  for  all  ages  and  all  countrys.  Per- 
haps the  historian  and  biographer  may  never  interweav  his 
name  in  the  tapestry  of  national  or  individual  renown.  But 
the  records  of  evry  single  church  honor  him  as  a  patron  : 
the  records  of  the  universal  church,  on  earth  and  in  heaven, 
bless  him  as  a  benefactor.  The  time  may  come,  when  the 
name  of  Lafayette  shall  be  forgotten,  or  when  the  star  of  his 
fame,  no  longer  glittering  in  the  zenith,  shall  be  seen  pale 
and  glimmering  on  the  verge  of  the  horizon.  But  the  name 
of  Robert  Raikes  shall  never  be  forgotten,  and  the  lambent 


262 

flame  of  his  glory  is  that  eternal  fire,  which  rushd  down 
from  heaven  to  devour  the  sacrifice  of  Elijah.  Let  mortals 
then  admire  and  imitate  Lafayette,  more  than  Robert  Raikes. 
But  the  just  made  perfect  and  the  ministering  spirits,  around 
the  throne  of  God,  hav  welcomd  him  as  a  fellow-servant  of 
the  same  Lord,  as  a  fellow-laborer  in  the  same  glorious 
cause  of  man's  redemption,  as  a  co-heir  of  the  same  precious 
promises  and  eternal  rewards. 


EXTRACT 

From  the  Letter  to  J.  C.   Calhoun,   R.    Y,  Hayne,   <fyc, 
February,  1832. 

There  is  still  another  great  duty  laid  upon  my  people 
and  all  their  public  servants — to  cultivate  the  spirit  of 
peace.  How  little  does  he  comprehend  the  character  and 
destiny  of  American  institutions,  who  has  not  learnd.  that 
war  is  forever  banishd  from  my  land.  Here  the  sword 
shall  never  be  unsheathed  to  shed  a  brother's  blood.  If  the 
government,  ordaind  by  all  to  bless  and  protect  each,  be  un- 
just and  oppressiv  to  some,  resistance  by  arms  would 
partake  of  the  guilt  of  murder,  of  the  folly  and  madnes  of 
suicide.  No  controversy  between  the  nation  and  the  states, 
or  between  the  states  themselvs,  shall  ever  be  settled  by  the 
sword.  In  such  a  cause,  the  warrior  would  be  staind  with 
the  double  guilt  of  the  rebel  and  the  fratricide.  His  art, 
with  all  its  chivalry  of  spirit,  and  all  its  splendor  of  equip- 
ment, would  be  a  loathsome  and  hideous  spectacle.  The 
blood  that  he  sheds,  would  be  unquenchable  fire  to  his  soul : 
an  ineffaceable  brand  of  horror  on  his  name.     Peace  is 

THE     UNCHANGABIE,      UNIVERSAL     LAW    OF    MY    LAND.       It 

must  be  indelibly  stamped  on  the  hearts  of  evry  ruler,  and 
of  all  my  people.  The  public  man,  in  whom  this  cardinal 
maxim  is  not  an  article  of  inflexible  faith,  is  a  reproach  to 
his  age  and  a  dishonor  to  his  nation.  Never  shall  he 
wear  the  noblest  wreath  of  the  American  ruler,  that  of  the 
Christian  patriot  and  statesman. 


264 

The  last  great  duty  of  my  children  is  pre-eminently 
such.  It  is  the  golden  rule  of  life,  the  whole  duty  of  the 
good  citizen ;  for  it  is  the  very  fountain  of  light,  security  and 
happines.  It  binds  evry  private  individual,  thro'out  my 
land,  as  with  the  sanctity  and  force  of  a  brother's  ties.  It 
binds  evry  ruler  as  with  adamantin  bonds,  when,  in  the 
presence  of  his  country,  he  calls  on  the  God  of  truth,  to 
attest  his  sincerity.  Love  one  another,  is  that  golden 
rule.  Love  one  another  with  a  frank,  constant,  elevated 
afection :  with  an  attachment,  undisturbd  by  jealousy  or  sel- 
fishnes,  by  levity  or  passion.  Love  one  another  fervently, 
in  spite  of  injury s,  provocation  and  injustice.  These  ar 
equaly  the  lot  of  communitys  and  individuals :  and  he  is 
unwise,  who  does  Jiot  know  that  in  such  case,  the  obligation 
of  love  becomes  stronger  and  more  sacred.  He  is  eminently 
unwise,  who  does  not  know  that  the  love,  which  can  then 
forbear  and  forgiv,  is  the  only  safeguard  of  equal  rights 
and  interests,  a  fountain,  uterly  inexhaustible,  of  mutual 
blessings  and  common  enjoyments.  Without  it,  my  people 
cannot  be  united,  free,  prosperous  and  happy.  Whoever, 
then,  whether  a  private  citizen  or  a  public  man,  shall  teach 
or  encourage,  in  word  or  in  deed,  even  the  least  of  my  chil- 
dren not  thus  to  love  one  another,  may  be  fit  for  the  turbu- 
lent republics  of  antiquity ;  but  his  heart  is  far  from  me,  and 
alien  to  the  regulated  freedom,  the  noble  confidence,  the 
frank  and  magnanimous  wisdom,  which  become  Americans. 
He  is  a  foreigner  in  the  land  of  his  birth :  a  stranger  at 
the  very  harth-stone  of  his  fathers. 

Such,  my  sons,  ar  the  great  landmarks  of  duty  to  all 
my  children.  You  ar  among  the  eminently  favord  of  those 
children :  favorits  of  nature,  in  the  wealth  of  intelectual  en- 
dowments :  favorits  of  fortune,  in  the  auspicious  incidents  of 
your  public  career :  favorits  of  your  country,  in  the  gratitude 
she  felt,  and  the  applause  she  bestowd.     I  respect  your  sin- 


265 

cerity,  I  honor  your  zeal,  I  acknowlege  your  talents,  patri* 
otism  and  services.  Grant  that  you  hav  acted  honestly, 
fearlesly,  disinterestedly.  Grant  that  the  people  of  your 
immediate  home  hav  been  neglected,  injurd,  oppressd :  and 
that  folly  or  ignorance,  fraud  or  corruption,  or  all  of  them 
combin'd,  hav  been  the  prolific  causes.  Grant  that  you 
hav  reasond,  and  expostulated,  and  protested  in  vain :  that 
my  people  themselvs  hav  been  slow  to  listen,  and  still  slower 
to  believ :  that  the  majority  of  their  rulers  hav  heard  with 
indifference,  or  turnd  away  in  disdain.  Had  you  respected 
the  landmarks  of  wisdom  and  patriotism,  I  hav  set  before 
you,  what  then  would  hav  been  your  duty  ?  That  duty  lay 
like  a  path-way  of  light,  amidst  those  landmarks.  He  who 
ran  might  read.  Even  the  wayfaring  man  could  not  err 
therein.  That  duty  was  an  alternativ.  You  ought  to  hav 
acknowlegd  that  majority  of  patriots  and  statesmen,  whodif- 
ferd  from  you,  to  be  as  probably  right  as  yourselvs:  and  as 
the  power  and  responsibility  were  theirs  not  yours,  it  was 
your  part,  with  the  humility  which  belongs  only  to  the  truly 
wise,  great  and  good,  to  acquiesce  in  theirs,  as  the  author ~ 
iz'd,  if  not  the  better  judgment.  Or,  if  you  believd  that  the 
subject  had  not  yet  been  sufficiently  discussd,  and  still  was 
not  thoro'ly  understood,  either  by  your  fellow  citizens  or 
your  fellow  rulers,  then  was  your  duty  equaly  plain.  Per- 
severance in  opposition  was  that  duty ;  but  perseverance  in 
the  tru  spirit  of  patriot  statesmen :  resolute,  yet  calm  and 
dignify'd  ;  uncompromising,  yet  respectful  and  conciliatory ; 
argumentativ  and  eloquent,  but  without  a  look  or  a  word  of 
anger,  indignity  or  menace.  These  were  the  immortal 
weapons,  which  became  me  and  you  :  this  the  noble  warfare, 
which  would  hav  honord  the  glorious  dead,  would  hav  van- 
quishd  the  living,  and  hav  challengd  the  gratitude  and  admi- 
ration of  posterity. 

Z 


266 

Tell  me  not  that  you  hav  lov'd  me  with  all  the  energy 
of  passion,  with  all  the  purity  and  fidelity  of  a  martyr's 
faith.  Tell  me  not,  that  you  hav  dedicated  on  my  altar, 
all  the  afections  of  the  heart,  and  all  the  powers  of  the  un- 
derstanding. Tell  me  not,  that  on  that  altar,  you  ar  ready 
to  sacrifice  fortune  and  happines,  power  and  distinction, 
yea,  life  itself.  Mine  is  the  altar  of  peace  a.nd  love. 
The  hand  that  is  not  ever  ready  to  clasp  a  brother's  hand, 
brings  an  impious  gift.  The  lips  that  hav  cursd,  and  de- 
nounc'd,  and  threatend  a  brother,  ar  touchd  with  no  live 
coal  from  that  altar.  The  soul  that  is  the  habitation  of  sus- 
picion, and  wrath,  and  contumely,  has  upon  it  the  plague- 
spot.  In  what  spirit  hav  you  lovd  ?  Let  your  words 
and  your  actions,  and  all  their  host  of  followers,  giv  the  an- 
swer. When  the  troubled  thoughts,  which  now  dwell  in 
your  souls,  were  entering  there,  O !  that  some  guardian  an- 
gel had  cast  his  scroll  before  you  to  rebuke  the  severity  of 
your  judgment — '  Arise  executioner  V  Tell  me  not  of  your 
motivs.  I  arraign  them  not.  I  judge  the  tree  by  its 
fruits.  Could  fountains  of  sweet  waters  hav  sent  forth 
the  bitter  streams,  that  travers  the  land,  scatering  dismay, 
and  jealousy,  and  hatred,  amidst  the  paradise  of  my  people? 
Tell  me,  ar  these  the  achievments  of  a  child's  fide- 
lity, OF  A  BROTHER'S  LOVE  ? 

O  my  sons  !  what  a  lot  was  yours,  how  fortunate,  how 
enviable !  O  what  an  opportunity  hav  you  lost,  of  ranking 
yourselvs  among  the  noblest  and  best  of  men  !  To  you  was 
offerd  the  crown  of  disinterested  magnanimity,  of  calm,  ele- 
vated, comprehensiv  wisdom;  of  a  patriot  devotion,  worthy 
of  Washington  himself.  In  an  evil  hour,  my  sons,  my  sons, 
you  dashd  it  from  you  for  ever.  Yours  was  the  power  to 
heal,  to  save,  to  bless.  The  past  of  your  lives  attested  at 
once  your  capacity,  your  glory,  and  your  virtue.  The  pre- 
sent was  rich  in  the  confidence  and  gratitude  of  all  my  chil- 


267 

dren.  The  respect,  the  love,  the  admiration  of  all  had  in- 
vested you  with  an  authority,  venerable  for  its  purity  and 
inteligence,  powerful  in  its  disinterestednes  and  benevo- 
lence.    That  authority  was  invincible  in  your  hands,  had 

YOU     BEEN    COUEAGOUS    AND    FAITHFUL    TO    THAT    TRUST. 

That  authority  was  potent  to  expose  the  sophistry  of  the 
cunning,  and  the  arts  of  the  selfish;  to  vanquish  the  unjust, 
and  break  the  rod  of  the  oppressor.  Rut  all  its  power  lay 
in  the  law  of  love.  Ye  knew  it  not ;  for  the  fruits  of 
your  deeds  plead  trumpet-tongued  against  you.  Ye  knew 
it  not;  but  erased  that  law  from  your  hearts.  Ye  knew  it 
not;  but  hav  struck  from  the  souls  of  thousands  of  my  peo- 
ple that  law  of  love,  and  hav  ivritten  there  the  law  of 


EXTRACT 

From  a  Letter  to  the  People  of  South  Carolina,  Decem- 
ber, 1832". 

But,  I  beseech  you,  mistake  me  not.  I  approve  no  such 
cours.  Had  I  the  power  and  the  right  to  bind  the  Union, 
I  would  hav  them  say  to  Carolina,  "  We  hav  resolvd  to 
take  away  evry  possibility  that  a  drop  of  blood  may  be  shed 
m  a  contest  between  yourselvs  and  the  union.  We  shall, 
therefore,  remove  evry  soldier  from  the  state,  and  abandon 
the  fortifications  in  your  harbor.  In  your  safe-keeping, 
for  we  at  least  will  trust  your  faith  and  honor,  ar  all  our 
munitions  of  war.  On  this  station  will  be  kept,  as  usual, 
only  the  customary  naval  force,  and  even  that  shall  be  re- 
mmJ&).  if  you  request  it.  Between  us  there  shall  be  no  other 
law  but  that  of  peace  and  reason*  We  will  not,  in  any 
event,  employ  the  navy,  much  less  the  army,  or  even  the 
militia  of  your  sister  states  against  you-  Let  the  nation  lose 
millions  of  revenu,  rather  than  a  drop  of  your  blood  should 
be  shed,  in  its  collection.  We  cannot  yield  our  opinion  to 
yours  ,*  for  a  vast  majority  of  the  people  and  of  your  sister 
states  approve  ours  and  coademn  yours ;  but  let  the  Union 
perish  before  its  cement  shall  be  the  blood  of  brothers.  We 
shall  go  onward,  in  what  appears  to  us  the  path  of  duty  to 
the  Union,  and  even  to  yourselvs.  But  if  you  interfere,  we 
shall  not  resort  to  force*  Our  instructions  to  our  officers 
will  be,  in  such  a  case,  to  employ  none  against  your  autho- 
rity.    If  you  continu  in  the  Union^  we  ar  willing  to  trust 


269 

to  your  good  sens,  and  your  justice,  for  indemnity.  If  you 
continu  not,  we  ar  willing  to  bear  the  loss,  rather  than  use 
violence  to  prevent  it.  Cost  what  it  may,  we  never  will 
employ  against  brothers  the  weapons  of  an  enemy.  We 
giv  you  a  year  to  reflect.  We  beseech  you  to  do  it,  in 
calmnes  and  moderation,  in  the  spirit  of  peace  and  love. 
We  conjure  you  to  do  it,  by  all  that  is  holy  in  liberty,  com- 
manding in  duty,  and  precious  in  the  recolections  of  our 
common  history."  At  the  end  of  that  year,  I  would  hav 
the  Union  ask  you  to  meet  in  Convention.  To  that  assem- 
bly I  would  hav  them  send  a  deputation  of  the  wise  and 
venerable  men  of  a  former  age ;  one  from  each  of  the  other 
states  in  the  Union.  These  should  come  to  you  in  the  gar- 
ments of  mourning,  and  with  the  deep  and  solemn  feeling  of 
the  priests  and  pontiffs,  whom  the  Romans  sent  to  deprecate 
the  wrath  of  Coriolanus.  I  would  hav  them  address  your 
delegates  in  that  spirit  which  breath'd  the  pathetic  sentiment, 
"  Daughters  of  Jerusalem,  weep  not  for  me,  but  weep  for 
yourselvs  and  your  children."  I  would  hav  them  ask,  ar 
you  prepar'd  to  yield  your  opinion  to  that  of  all  your  sisters. 
If  you  replyd  that  you  were  not,  I  would  hav  them  pro- 
nounce, in  the  sublime  and  afecting  language  of  freemen 
and  brothers,  your  divorce  from  the  marriage  bond  of  the 
Union. 

Then,  had  I  authority  to  speak  for  the  sister  states,  and 
the  national  government,  I  would  hav  their  delegates  to  say 
to  Carolina,  in  grief,  not  in  anger,  "  Depart  in  peace.  Never 
shall  American  blood  be  shed  by  us  in  civil  contest.  You 
hav  shown  that  you  know  not  the  character  of  the  Union : 
that  you  bear  to  it  no  love :  that  you  estimate  its  value,  not 
by  the  precious  privileges  and  glorious  associations  which 
dignify  and  adorn  it ;  but  by  the  ledger  and  the  price  current. 
You  hav  shown,  by  your  ordinance,  that  you  understand 
not,  or  count  as  nothing,  the  cardinal  principles  of  American 

z2 


270 

freedom :  that  you  can  violate  "  deliberately,  palpably  and 
dangerously,"  your  own  and  the  constitution  of  the  Union  : 
that  you  can  set  at  nought  the  ancient  landmarks  of  legisla- 
tiv  power,  and  the  independence  of  the  judiciary,  the  sanctity 
of  contracts,  and  the  purity  of  the  trial  by  jury.  You  hav 
shown,  that  in  the  name  of  Liberty,  you  can  smite  and  dis- 
honor her :  that  with  her  prais  on  your  lips,  you  hav  put 
her  to  shame  by  your  deeds  :  that  you  hav  ceased  to  be 
an  American  Republic  Depart  then  in  peace  :  with  the 
blessings  and  the  grief,  not  the  curses  and  wrath  of  your 
sisters.  Depart  until  you  shall  again  become  worthy  of  the 
society  of  free  states,  of  a  place  in  the  sisterhood  of  Ameri- 
can Republics*" 

Such  would  be  the  sentiments  which  I  should  utter,  had  I 
power  to  speak  for  the  rest  of  the  American  family.  But,  it 
is  among  rulers,  as  among  individuals.  Few  hav  the  wis- 
dom to  acknowlege  or  the  courage  to  act  on  the  noble  and 
lovely  principles  of  Christian  peace.  The  battel-ship  and 
the  tented  field,  the  sword  and  the  cannon,  the  science  and 
the  stratagems  of  war,  ar  at  once  the  symbols  of  power,  and 
the  proofs  of  courage,  the  logic  of  statesmen  and  the  elo- 
quence of  patriots.  The  very  dead,  who  lie  in  their  gory 
beds  at  Lexington  and  Bunker,  at  King's  Mountain  and  Eu- 
taw,  the  victims  of  foreign  bayonets,  ar  invok'd  to  bless  fra- 
tricide :  and  "  the  chivalry  of  the  south,"  becomes  a  watch- 
word to  kindle  the  pride  and  inflame  the  passions  of  brother 
against  brother.  And  is  it  to  the  sordid  elements  of  pride 
and  passion,  of  selfishnes,  jealousy  and  prejudice,  that  the 
American  statesmen  is  willing  to  appeal  1  Can  he  consent 
to  make  the  sword  the  arbiter,  in  any  event,  under  any  cir- 
cumstances, between  the  states  themselvs,  or  between  one  of 
them  and  the  Union?  God  forbid  that  a  drop  of  blood  should 
ever  be  shed  in  such  a  cause.  I  would  hav  the  Union  say  to 
South  Carolina,  "  If  your  people  prefer  a  separate  existence, 


271 

let  them  hav  it  f  if  they  would  rather  enjoy  foreign  depend- 
ence on  natural  enemys,  (for  that  is  inevitable)  than  a  bro- 
therly dependence  on  their  own  kindred,  be  it  so :  if  they 
prefer  to  the  republican  government  of  the  Union,  the  anti- 
republican  ordinance  of  their  convention,  let  them  be  grati- 
fy'd."  But  who  believs  that  the  Union  will  act  thus  1  With 
the  same  elements  of  pride  and  passion,  of  selfishnes,  jea- 
lousy and  prejudice,  which  inflame  you,  can  you  doubt  that 
the  national  rulers,  elevated  by  the  consciousnes  of  superior 
power,  will  take  up  the  gauntlet  which  you  hav  cast  at  their 
feet? 

For  myself,  I  trust,  that  I  hold  with  an  inflexible  convic- 
tion the  sentiment,  that  the  character  of  the  warrior,  in  any 
point  of  view,  is  unchristian,  and  in  civil  contest,  is  ab- 
solutely and  unchangably  anti-republican.  Abov  all, 
in  our  American  republics,  so  incomparably  superior  in  their 
elements  and  structure,  to  all  other  governments,  ancient  or 
modern,  I  hold  the  appeal  to  arms,  on  disputed  questions  of 
any  kind,  to  be  ingratitude  to  Heaven,  treachery  to  the 
cause  of  regulated  government,  and  actual  hostility  to  the 
highest  interests  of  freedom.  It  is  the  duty  of  the  American 
family,  and  their  safety  and  happines  demand  it,  that  the 
sword  never  shoidd  be  drawn  among  themselvs*  Let  them 
resolv  inflexibly,  that  this  shall  be  the  great  law  of  their 
social  compact :  that  the  law  of  violence  and  blood  shall  be 
forever  blotted  out  from  the  tables  of  their  law :  and  the 
golden  rule  of  love,  the  test  of  a  Christian  people,  the  highest 
fountain  of  peace  and  happines,  the  highest  security  of  free- 
dom herself,  the  tru  glory  of  confederated  republics,  shall  be 
written  there  in  its  stead.  All  acknowlege  the  truth,  and 
admire  the  beauty  of  these  sentiments.  And  yet,  of  that  all, 
how  few  hav  the  courage  and  the  wisdom,  with  a  calm  and 
single-hearted  resolutenes  of  purpose,  to  take  the  only 
Christian,  the  only  Republican  ground,  the  sword  shall 


272 

never  be  drawn  by  brother  against  brother,  or  by  brothers 
against  the  family  government  of  brothers !— -Who  is  so 
blind  as  not  to  see,  that  the  great  danger  of  the  American 
states  lies  in  the  law  of  violence  ?  Who  does  not  know 
that  the  sword  among  freemen  is  the  assassin's  dagger  to  li- 
berty ?  The  blood  of  martyrdom  shed  on  the  scaffold,  is  the 
very  dew  of  Heaven  to  perishing  liberty  ;  but  the  blood  of 
civil  contest,  in  a  republic,  is  to  her  as  consuming  fire  from 
the  bottomles  pit.  What  but  the  prospect,  what  but  the 
preparation  for  an  appeal  to  the  law  of  violence,  could  hav 
led  your  convention  to  invade  the  state  and  national  consti- 
tutions so  palpably  and  deliberately :  and  to  substitute  the 
treacherous  beacons  of  tyrany,  for  the  eternal  landmarks  of 
freedom?  These  infractions  ar  the  more  dangerous  and 
hostil  to  freedom,  because  they  ar  a  highway  for  military 
power.  Already  in  the  vista  you  may  behold  its  standard 
unfurld.  Its  battel-shout  is  wafted  in  no  faint  murmur  to 
your  ear,  and  liberty  stands  aghast  at  the  scene.  It  is  a  vi- 
sion of  brothers  murderd  by  brothers,  of  the  widow  and  the 
orphan,  mourning  over  fathers  and  sons,  kindred  and  friends, 
slain  by  each  other.  Shall  it  be  but  a  vision  ?  It  must  be 
such,  if  you  will  it.  But  if  you  stand  by,  and  speak  not  the 
will  of  a  free,  enlightend,  Christian,  peaceful  people,  it  will 
be  your  own  history,  the  very  next  year. 

For  myself,  I  protest  in  the  name  of  the  religion  of  peace ; 
in  the  name  of  our  sister  republics ;  in  the  name  of  liberty 
thro'out  the  world ;  in  the  name  of  Washington,  Franklin 
and  Jay,  against  this  fratricidal  violence,  against  the  law 
of  the  sword.  I  adjure  you  by  the  hopes  of  the  noble 
army  of  martyrs,  on  the  scaffold  of  tyrany  and  at  the  stake 
of  persecution,  to  banish  forever  the  law  of  the  sword.  I 
adjure  you  by  the  bitter  repentance  in  the  eternal  world,  of 
the  tens  of  thousands  who  hav  perishd  in  the  battel-shock 
of  civil  wars,  to  banish  it  forever.  I  adjure  you  by  the  counties 


273 

spirits  of  her  children,  whether  of  the  darkest  or  the  bright- 
est ages  of  liberty,  to  banish  it  forever.  I  adjure  you  in  the 
name  of  the  God  of  our  fathers,  who  hath  given  you  the  no- 
blest inheritance,  the  most  glorious  prospects,  ever  conferd 
on  his  children,  to  banish  forever  the  law  of  vio- 
lence, THE  LAW  OF  THE  SWORD. 

I  at  least  hav  resolvd,  and  may  God  giv  me  strength  to 
abide  by  that  holy  purpose,  that  come  what  may,  I  shall 
never  bear  arms  in  a  civil  contest.  Property,  personal  li- 
berty, life  itself,  ar  my  country's.  They  ar  in  her  power. 
I  hav  lov'd :  I  hav  honord :  I  hav  servd  her.  Let  her  make 
me  a  pauper ;  let  her  cast  me  down  into  the  dungeon  of  her 
wrath ;  let  her  drag  me  on  the  traitor's  hurdle  to  the  scaffold 
of  her  avenging  justice ;  but  never  can  she  blot  out  from  my 
soul  a  brother's  love ;  never  shall  she  brand  that  soul  with  a 
brother's  blood. 


*7 


EXTRACT 

From  a  Letter  on  Peace, 

It  seems  to  me  most  strange,  how  a  Christian  can  reason 
as  you  do  on  the  subject  of  Peace.  You  admit  that  Peace 
principles,  as  expounded  by  me,  ar  the  pure  and  obvious 
teachings  of  the  Gospel ;  and  yet  you  lay  them  aside  in  favor 
of  calculations  of  human  expediency.  Do  Christian  princi- 
ples justify  such  a  cours  1  Is  obedience  or  disobedience  to 
be  determind  by  such  a  test  ?  What  ar  we  but  the  children 
of  God  ?  Is  not  the  Father  wiser  than  the  child  ?  What  ar 
we  but  the  subjects  of  God  ?  Is  not  the  Ruler  wiser  than  the 
governd  1  And  yet  you  justify  the  child  and  subject  in  break- 
ing the  plain,  express  command  of  an  all-wise  and  all  bene- 
volent parent  and  sovreign,  on  the  supposition  that  man  is 
wiser  than  God,  that  man  is  better  able  to  decide  what  is 
best  for  himself,  than  God.  Again,  you  acknowlege  the 
power  of  God ;  you  acknowlege  his  faithfulnes.  He  is  able 
and  willing  to  protect  you  against  a  million  of  men  in  arms. 
You  cannot  deny  that,  if  he  pleasd,  he  could  hav  protected 
Holland  or  Switzerland  against  the  combin'd  naval  and  mili- 
tary force  of  Napolean  and  Alexander,  of  Austria,  Prussia, 
and  England.  Now,  if  he  commands  obedience,  what  right 
hav  you  to  doubt,  if  you  obey,  that  he  will  protect  you, 
provided  it  be  consistent  with  his  view  of  his  own  govern- 
ment, in  relation  to  yourself?  Does  not  your  error  lie  in  as- 
suming, that  he  will  not  protect  you,  if  you  do  obey :  and  is 
not  this  bas'd  on  a  still  more  fatal  error,  that  you  hav  a  right 


275 

to  calculate  on,  and  even  to  stipulate  for  protection,  as  the 
condition  of  obedience?  Now  this  cannot  be  maintaind  for  a 
moment.  How  do  you  know,  but  that  your  sufering,  as 
the  consequence  of  your  fidelity  to  him,  may  be  an  im- 
portant point  in  his  moral  government.  Do  you  not  prejudge 
the  whole  matter,  without  either  sufficient  knowlege  or  any 
right  to  judge  ?  Again,  is  it  not  manifest,  that  you,  and  so  do 
all  who  argu  on  your  side,  assume  as  a  fact,  what  no  one 
but  a  prophet  could  know,  that  if  all  Christians  were  faith- 
ful to  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  the  result  would  be,  that 
"  the  whole  of  the  civiliz'd  and  humaniz'd  world  would  be 
subjected  to  the  brutal  passions  of  a  few  arm'd  banditti." 
Now  whether  a  Christian  belie vs  that  this  would  be  the  re- 
sult of  his  fidelity  or  not,  is  perfectly  immaterial  to  the  ob- 
ligation of  obedience.  The  world  is  God's,  and  he  alone  has 
a  right  to  dispose  of  all  its  events,  both  great  and  small,  both 
public  and  private.  Now,  we  will  grant  your  conclusion  to 
be  tru,  that  such  would  be  the  result  of  obedience ;  and  what 
follows?  That  we  should  be  disobedient?  Not  so;  but  just 
the  revers,  that  we  should  be  more  sternly  and  zealously 
faithful,  because  we  cannot  doubt  if  bonds  and  imprisonment, 
if  persecution  or  torture,  if  ignominy  and  death  ar  to  be  our 
lot,  God  has  so  willd,  in  his  wisdom  and  goodnes,  for  our 
purification  and  perfection,  and  for  the  welfare  of  his  church. 
Can  a  Christian  doubt,  much  less  deny  this  ?  What  is  your 
argument  but  this  I  God  has  clearly  requir'd  obedience  in  this 
particular ;  but  if  I  obey,  I  shall  subject  myself  to  the  loss  of 
life,  liberty,  or  property,  or  of  all  of  them?  Ar  not  life, 
liberty,  property,  his,  and  not  yours  ?  Ar  they  not  grant- 
ed to  you,  subject  to  his  reveald  will  ?  Has  he  not  a  right 
to  resume  them  at  any  time,  and  in  any  manner  he  pleases, 
even  under  circumstances  of  the  greatest  pain  and  terror,  and 
even  degradation  to  yourself?  You  cannot  deny  this.  Did 
the  primitiv  Christians  or  the  Protestants  reason  as  you  do. 


276 

when  they  submitted  to  confiscation  and  the  jail,  persecution 
and  death,  in  thousands  and  tens  of  thousands,  rather  than 
be  disobedient !  They  followd  the  letter  of  the  command- 
ment against  all  human  arguments  and  calculations.  They 
trusted  to  a  faithful  God,  because,  come  what  might,  they 
knew  that  he  had  a  right  to  obedience  without  any  conditions 
or  calculations  on  their  part. 

But  let  us  change  the  view  of  the  matter.  You  assume 
that,  if  all  good  men  were  to  conform  to  the  Peace  Princi- 
ples of  the  Gospel,  the  civiliz'd  world  would  be  the  victim  of 
an  armd  banditti.  Now,  I  assert  precisely  the  reverse.  Let 
us  examin  your  proofs  and  mine.  You  instance  the  case  of 
the  Peruvians.  But  did  the  warlike  Mexicans  fare  any  better  ? 
Did  all  the  martial  tribes  of  North  America  fare  any  better? 
Besides,  the  Peruvians  were  Heathen. — They  had  not  the 
promises  of  the  Gospel  of  Peace.  And  knowing  as  we  do, 
that  God  has  seen  fit  to  draw  a  broad  line  of  distinction  be- 
tween the  Heathen  and  the  Christian,  the  Pagan  who  has 
not  the  privileges  of  the  Christian  faith,  cannot  expect  its  re- 
wards. We  cannot,  then,  reason  consistently  from  the  case 
of  the  Heathen  to  the  case  of  the  Christian.  Peace  with  the 
Peruvian,  was  a  matter  of  custom  or  national  character,  so 
far  as  it  realy  prevaild.  With  the  Christian  it  must  be  a 
matter  of  principle,  and  of  submission  to  the  will  of  God. 
But  I  am  not  content  with  this  reply  only.  Allow  me  to  ask 
for  an  instance  of  a  Christian  people  who  ever  repos'd  their 
trust  in  God  on  Peace  principles,  and  had  reason  to  repent  it  ? 
You  cannot  name  an  instance ;  at  least  I  remember  none. 
On  the  contrary,  let  me  ask  your  attention — 1st,  To  the  case 
of  the  Jews,  who  were  commanded  (the  males)  to  appear 
three  times  a-year  at  Jerusalem.  Yet  tho'  surrounded  by 
enemys,  we  know  that  advantage  was  never  taken  of  this 
defenceles  state  of  the  land.  God  had  promisd  protection ; 
and  the  people  trusted,  obeyd,  and  never  had  reason  to  re- 


277 

pent  that  obedience.     2nd,  To  the  case  of  the  Quaker  Colo- 
ny of  Pennsylvania,  which  was  unmolested  by  the  Indians 
for  70  years ;  whilst  all  the  aemd  colonys  were  continualy 
at  war  with  them.     3d,  To  the  Quakers  of  New  England, 
who  remaind  in  their  cottages,  cultivated  their  fields,  and 
went  about  the  country  unarmd  and  unmolested,  amidst  all 
the  terrors  and  massacers  of  Indian  wars.     4th,  To  the 
Quakers  of  Ireland  in  1798,  who  were  literaly  in  the  lion's 
den  of  Darius,  and  the  fiery  furnace  of  Nebuchadnezzar ; 
yet,  like  Daniel,  were  sav'd  by  faith.   O,  what  a  lesson,  what 
a  rebuke  to  the  Christian  of  human  calculation  and  human 
expediency !  If  you  hav  never  read  Thomas  Hancock's  noble 
and  afecting  account  of  the  Christian  faithfulnes  of  the  Friends 
in  1798 — under  the  most  pathetic  and  trying  circumstances, 
let  me  recommend  it  most  earnestly  to  you.    I  causd  copys 
to  be  placed  in  the  Sunday  School  Library s,  as  well  as  in 
the  Library  of  the  Theological  Seminary.    I  can  hardly  giv 
a  better  proof  of  the  high  regard  that  I  hav  for  the  book,  than 
by  mentioning,  that  I  hav  employd  an  agent  in  Philadel- 
phia, to  place  a  copy  in  the  Library  of  evry  Sunday  School 
in  Boston,  New  York,  Philadelphia,  and  Baltimore.     I  had 
already  done  the  same  in  Charleston,  and  shall  follow  up 
the  good  work  next,  with  all  the  citys  of  the  second  class  ; 
such  as  Providence,  New  Haven,  Albany,  &c.     You  hav 
conceded  my  theory   to  be  right ;  of  cours  yours  must  be 
wrong.     Mine  is  the  Christian,  yours  the  Heathen  theory. 
And  now  for  the  facts.     I  hav  given  mine,  and  what  ar 
they  but  Christian  experience  1  You  hav  given  yours,  and 
what  ar  they  but  Heathen  experience?   and  that  too,  the 
experience  of  a  military,  tho'  comparativly  effeminate  people, 
who  stood  in  the  same  relation  to  Pizarro  and  his  Spanish 
chivalry,  as  Darius  and  the  Persians  to  Alexander  and  the 
Macedonians.     The  Peruvians  were  not  Quakers,  without 
arms  or  fortifications  or  military  instruments,  but  the  revers. 
Aa 


278 

Had  they  even  been  a  Christian  people,  they  would  not  hav 
been  entitled  to  protection  on  the  ground  of  faithfulnes  to  the 
Peace  principles  of  the  Savior,  because  they  were  unfaithful, 
having  always  rely'd  on  arms  and  fortifications  and  the  art 
of  war  for  their  defence.  Is  not  the  truth  this  ?  that  there 
never  has  been  a  nation,  which  has  acted  on  Peace  princi- 
ples.* You  cannot  show  a  single  one  in  the  whole  history 
of  the  ancient  and  modern  world,  of  Pagan,  Jewish,  Maho- 
metan, and  Christian  community s,  which  has  not  been, 
thro'  the  whole  cours  of  its  existence  the  persecutor,  op- 
pressor, and  tormentor  of  others,  in  all  the  forms  of  war  ; 
which  has  not  been  itself  in  like  manner  persecuted,  oppressd 
and  tormented  from  the  cradle  to  the  grave ;  and  which  has 
not  eventualy  perishd  by  the  sword  of  the  more  fortunate, 
skilful,  or  powerful  in  arms.  There  is,  then,  no  experience 
against  peace,  for  not  a  single  nation  has  ever  been  peaceful. 
All  the  experience  of  history  is  against  war,  for  all  nations 
hav  been  warlike.  History  teaches  us,  not  that  the  peaceful 
ar  the  prey  of  the  warlike,  but  that  the  warlike  hav  always 
been  the  victims  of  the  warlike.  And  while  nations  continu 
to  act  the  part  which  they  hav  ever  acted,  since  the  opening 
of  the  grand  historical  Tragedy  of  War,  must  not  things  re- 
main the  same  ?  You  will  answer  yes,  because  you  say,  "  I 
fear  that  wars  cannot  and  will  not  ceas,  till  the  will  of  God 
on  this  point  shall  be  manifested  by  miracles,  which  shall 
constrain  the  obedience  of  man." — And  has  not  the  will  of 
God  been  manifested  on  this  point?  You  admit  it,  because 
you  acknowlege  that  Peace  principles  ar  "  the  divine  teach- 
ings of  the  Savior,  in  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount."  And  has 
not  that  will  been  manifested  by  miracles?  What  was  the 
life  of  the  Savior  and  his  Apostles,  after  entering  on  his  pub- 

*  Perhaps  I  ought  to  exempt  the  Quaker  colony  of  Wm.  Penn, 
which,  thro'  not  strictly  a  nation,  had  for  the  purposes  of  this 
argument  a  species  of  national  existence. 


279 

lie  ministry,  but  a  series  of  miraculous  proofs  of  the  truth  of 
his  religion,  of  the  faithfulnes  of  God,  and  of  the  beauty, 
valu,  and  authority  of  Peace  principles  1  And  ar  miracles 
still  calld  for,  "  to  constrain  the  obedience  of  man?"  Is  not 
the  answer  to  that  call,  like  the  answer  of  Abraham  to  the 
rich  man?  They  hav  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  and  the  ex- 
amples of  Christ,  and  his  Apostles  and  Disciples,  for  two 
hundred  years.  If  they  will  not  hear  them,  neither  would 
they  be  persuaded  tho'  they  beheld  miracles.  Besides,  you 
will  observ  that  God  has  never  employd  miracles,  but  as 
proofs  of  the  divine  authority  of  the  Teacher,  and  of  the  truth 
of  his  revelation.  He  never  has  employd  them  to  accom- 
plish a  revolution  in  society  or  government.  On  the  con- 
trary he  has  uniformly  acted  on  man,  as  the  subject  of  go- 
vernment, and  susceptible  of  the  influence  of  moral  conside- 
rations. What  but  the  faithfulnes  of  his  servants,  unaided 
by  miracles,  has  accomplishd  the  vast  amount  of  good  which 
they  hav  done  in  Protestant  countrys  within  the  last  $iree 
hundred  years,  thro'  the  medium  of  religion  and  education, 
government,  science,  and  literature  ?  Let  Christians  be  faith- 
ful to  the  caus  of  Peace  and  they  may  expect  even  a  greater 
blessing  on  their  labors.  At  all  events,  it  is  their  duty  to 
giv  the  example.  Paul  or  Apollos  may  sow  the  precious 
seed  of  gospel  love,  but  God  only  can  giv  the  increas.  Let 
the  thirteen  hundred  and  twenty-four  thousand  communicants 
of  these  United  States  be  faithful  subjects  of  the  Prince  of 
Peace,  and  will  you  need  miracles  ?  Do  you  ask  miracles  to 
constrain  their  obedience?  Hav  they  not  dedicated  them- 
selvs  as  servants  of  the  Prince  of  Peace,  to  do  his  will  and 
not  their  own  ?  Hav  they  not  vowd  fidelity  to  the  Sermon 
on  the  Mount?  Let  them  be  faithful,  and  they  need  no  mira- 
cles. Let  them  be  unfaithful,  and  they  deserv  none. 
Yours,  Truly, 

THOMAS  S.  GRIMKE. 


Petition  of  Thomas  S.  GrimJce  to  the  Legislature  of  South 
Carolina,  Dec.  1832. 

The  Petition  of  Thomas  S.  Grimk£ 
Sheweth, 

That  your  petitioner  is  abov  the  age  of  forty-five,  and 
was  therefore  exempt,  according  to  the  militia  laws  hereto- 
fore prevailing,  except  in  extraordinary  cases.  As  however 
the  whole  system  is  now  to  be  re-organizd,  and  those  abov 
forty-five  ar  to  be  also  calld  out,  he  begs  leav  to  lay  before 
you  his  peculiar  case,  and  to  ask  of  the  liberality  and  justice 
of  his  nativ  state,  an  exemption  from  all  militia  duty. 

The  ground  on  which  your  petitioner  rests  his  application, 
has  nothing  to  do  with  political  opinions,  at  this  or  any  other 
period.  He  places  his  request  exclusivly  on  religious  ground ; 
unconnected  with  any  party  politics.  Having  been  led, 
about  a  year  since,  to  consider  the  question  of  the  lawful nes 
of  war,  he  came  to  the  conclusion,  after  a  careful  examina- 
tion of  the  subject,  that  war,  under  any  circumstances,  in 
any  form,  and  at  any  time,  is  unlawful  in  a  Christian,  and 
absolutely  irreconcilable  with  the  spirit  of  humility  and  for- 
bearance, of  peace  and  love,  not  only  taught,  but  commanded 
in  the  Gospel.  His  conscience  having  been  thus  satisfy'd, 
and  his  understanding  convinc'd,  he  has  not  hesitated  to  de- 
clare those  sentiments  and  to  publish  them,  as  opportunity 
ofTerd,  not  doubting  in  the  least,  their  truth  and  obligation. 
For  the  sincerity  of  these  opinions,  your  petitioner  can  only 
refer  to  the  best  testimony  which  man  can  offer  to  his  fellow 
man,  the  uniform  tenor  of  his  public  and  private  life.     To 


281 

the  same  he  would  ask  leav  to  refer,  to  show  that  he  is  not 
influenc'd  by  any  unworthy  motiv,  in  making  this  request; 
but  solely  by  scruples  of  conscience,  and  by  a  strength  of 
conviction,  which  is  built  on  the  doctrins  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment. He  may  be  allowd  to  add,  in  corroboration  of  the 
honesty  of  those  scruples,  and  the  strength  of  that  conviction, 
what  might  appear  surprising  to  others,  that  he  knows  not 
his  own  heart  if  he  would  return  a  blow,  however  insolent 
or  unprovok'd ;  and  nothing,  but  the  loss  of  self-command, 
he  verily  believs,  could  ever  induce  him  to  take  another's 
life  to  save  his  own. 

Your  petitioner  trusts  that  the  prayer  of  his  petition  may 
be  granted ;  that  the  same  spirit,  which  has  respected  the 
scruples  of  those  who  affirm,  but  will  not  swear,  and  of  those 
who  regard  Saturday  as  their  Sabbath,  and  ar  therefore  ex- 
cus'd  from  jury  duty  on  that  day,  may  respect  his  scruples, 
on  a  far  more  solemn  and  important  subject,  the  right  to 
take  life  and  the  obligation  to  bear  arms.  To  grant  his 
petition  will  be  an  act  of  magnanimity,  and  of  justice  to  the 
rights  of  conscience :  and  can  be  no  disadvantage  to  the  pub- 
lic ;  as  your  petitioner  knows  of  no  other  person  in  the  state 
who  is  of  the  same  opinion.  This,  he  frankly  admits,  may 
be  a  strong  argument  to  prove  that  he  is  in  error,  but  is  it 
not  a  still  stronger  one  to  establish  the  strength  of  his  convic- 
tion and  the  sincerity  of  his  scruples?  That  he  thus  exposes 
himself  in  the  cause  of  conscience  to  the  ridicule  and  con- 
tempt, to  the  misapprehensions  and  misrepresentations  of 
prejudice  and  passion,  of  courage,  pride,  and  honor,  may  be 
an  argument  of  folly  and  weaknes,  but  will  be  receivd,  he 
trusts,  as  conclusiv  to  show  that  he  values  such  considera- 
tions but  little,  in  comparison  of  what  he  conceivs  to  become 
him,  under  the  obligations  of  Christian  duty,  independence 
and  franknes. 

a  a  2 


282 

In  presenting  this  request  to  the  Senate,  your  petitioner 
conceivs  that  he  is  doing  an  act  of  justice  to  the  state  and  to 
himself;  to  the  state,  because  he  knows  that  no  exemption 
could  be  granted  in  his  case,  but  by  the  legislature ;  and  to 
himself,  because  he  is  bound,  if  the  ordinary  means  of  petition 
will  avail  him,  to  secure  what  he  regards  as  a  sacred  right 
and  duty* 


EXTRACT 


From  an  Oration  before  the  Washington  Society, 
July  4,  1833. 


The  last  great  duty  of  Americans,  is,  to  reverence  and 
cultivate  the  essential,  vital  spirit  of  American  institutions. 
How  lamentably  hav  we  errd  in  this  respect,  "  groping  in 
the  dark"  as  Franklin  said  of  the  Convention;  and  seeking 
for  light  and  models,  among  the  institutions  of  ages,  and  na- 
tions, far  remov'd  from  us  in  time  or  character.  How  in- 
sensible hav  we  shown  ourselvs  to  the  spirit  of  American 
Institutions  !  Instead  of  studying,  developing  and  perfecting 
them,  we  hav  been  seduc'd  from  our  alegiance  to  that 
spirit,  and  treading  the  paths  of  European  precedent,  hav 
sought  for  our  tree  of  life  in  the  classic  gardens  of  "  those 
finishd  historys,  which,"  it  is  said,  "  still  enlighten  and  in- 
struct governments  in  their  duty  and  their  destiny."  Can 
we  better  improve  the  most  memorable  anniversary  in  our 
own,  or  any  other  national  annals,  than  by  devoting  the  re- 
sidu  of  this  day  to  meditation  on  the  tru  character  of 
that  spirit?  And  to  whom  shall  this  last  great  duty  be 
assignd  ? 

Fellow-Countrymen,  Fellow-Citizens?  this  last  duty  is 
assignd  to  you.  Yours  is  the  noblest,  the  most  precious 
heritage,  that  free  men  hav  ever  possesd.  Yours  is  indeed, 
the  Promisd  Land,  foretold  by  the  prophet  pen  of  Philosophy, 
or  .seen  thro'  a  glass  darkly,  in  the  visions  of  Poetry.   Yours 


284 

is  a  realm,  more  spacious  in  extent,  more  various  in  charac- 
ter, and  richer  in  resources,  than  the  statesman -patriot  of 
any  other  age  or  country  ever  calld  "  his  own,  his  nativ 
land."  Your's  was  an  infancy,  marvelous  beyond  that  of 
any  other  people :  a  youth,  such  as  the  republics  of  Ancient 
and  Modern  Europe  seek  in  vain,  among  the  records  of  their 
own  historians :  a  manhood,  earlier,  more  dignify 'd,  more 
commanding,  than  the  annals  of  any  other  nation  presents 
to  our  view.  Shall  yours  be  the  lot  of  a  premature  old  age, 
imbecil,  degraded,  the  object  of  mockery,  contempt  and  in- 
dignation? Or  shall  it  be  that  serene,  that  beautiful  old  age ; 
that  virtuous,  majestic  and  glorious  old  age,  little  less  than 
immortal  youth,  which  shall  be  the  destiny,  only  of  a  free, 
educated,  peaceful,  christian  people?  Is  there  a  heart 
in  all  this  holy  temple  that  does  not  breathe  its  fervent  aspi- 
rations to  the  Father  of  Lights,  to  the  God  of  all  mercys, 
"  May  such  be  the  old  age  of  our  country !" — That  such  may 
be  the  lot  of  our  children  to  the  latest  generations,  depends 

On      YOU,      MY      BELOVD      AND      RESPECTED      COUNTRYMEN  ! 

You  must  meditate  often  and  anxiously  on  the  spirit  of 
American  Institutions.  That  spirit  is  Freedom,  Education, 
Peace,  Religion.  These  are  the  four  Cardinal  virtues  of  our 
American  Republic :  their  concentrated  essence  is  the  spirit 
of  our  institutions. 

We  ar,  we  must  continu  a  free,  educated,  peaceful 
Christian  people.  But  freedom  is  not  with  us  what  freedom 
was  in  the  ancient  democracys.  The  liberty  of  those  ancient 
States,  was  the  inertnes  of  palzy,  or  the  shocking  features 
of  apoplexy.  It  was  licentiousnes  and  anarchy,  the  fierce 
contest  between  patrician  and  plebian,  or  between  a  jealous 
and  ever-endangerd  people  on  the  one  hand,  and  powerful, 
corrupt,  ambitious  rulers  on  the  other.  Their  portrait  is 
sketchd  by  the  pencil  of  a  poet,  but  with  the  fidelity  of 
history : 


285 


M  Who  that  would  ask  a  heart  to  dulness  wed? 
The  waveless  calm,  the  slumber  of  the  dead] 
No !  the  wild  bliss  of  nature  needs  alloy, 
And  fear  and  sorrow  fan  the  fires  of  joy."* 

Not  such  is  American  freedom.  Her  spirit  is  Religion, 
Peace,  Education.  It  is  tranquil,  sedate,  rational,  dignify 'd. 
May  the  Galvanic  convulsions  of  Athenian  and  Roman 
liberty,  never  be  the  lot  of  our  country !  Nor  is  Freedom 
with  us,  the  freedom  of  European  States.  There,  the  great 
landmarks  ar,  the  supremacy  of  the  members  and  the  su- 
bordination of  the  head ;  exemption  from  the  misgovernment 
of  their  hereditary  Rulers;  and  security  against  Tyrany. 
But  with  us,  the  parts  are  subjected  to  the  whole :  represen- 
tation is  pure,  simple,  equal :  an  independent  judiciary  is  a 
shield  of  defence,  against  executiv  violence,  legislativ  errors, 
and  popular  prejudice.  We  hav  nothing  to  dread  from  ty- 
rany and  tyrants,  nothing  seriously  and  permanently  from  the 
ambition  of  rulers ;  evry  thing  from  the  abuse  of  self-govern- 
ment. Let  the  people  only  realize  the  tru  spirit  of  Ameri- 
can Institutions,  considerate,  tranquil,  prudent  as  it  is,  and 
their  spirit  must  be  the  spirit  of  their  rulers.     Let  the 

PEOPLE  DO  THEIR  DUTY  TO  THEMSELVS,  THOUGHTFULLY, 
CALMLY,  DISCREETLY,  AND  THEIR  RULERS  WILL  NOT,  DARE 
NOT  BE    DISOBEDIENT    TO    THE    SPIRIT    OF  THEIR    MASTERS. 

Let  the  devotee  of  European  liberty,  perishing  in  the  battel 
field  against  tyrants,  on  the  scaffold  of  civil  contest,  or  in  the 
prison  of  faction,  breathe  forth  his  indignant  spirit,  in  the 
aspiration  of  the  Tuscan  patriot  inscrib'd  on  his  dungeon 
walls, 

"  Exoriare  aliquis  nostris  ex  ossibus  ultor." — Ms.  1.  4,  v.  6, 
*  Campb.  Pleas.  Hope,  p.  2,  v.  17, 


286 

But,  while  the  spirit  of  American  Institutions  shall  endure, 
our  eminent  patriots  may  indeed  be  calld  to  their  rest,  in  their 
own  homes,  as  by  divine  appointment,  even  on  the  birthday 
of  American  Independence.*  But  never,  never  shall  they 
die  on  the  battel  field  of  brothers,  never  in  the  bastile  of  ty- 
rants, never  on  the  scaffold  of  the  rebel  or  the  traitor.  O  my 
country !  mayst  thou  cling,  with  an  enduring  trust  as  thou 
hast  so  lately  done,  to  the  spirit  of  American  Institutions  ! 
"  Thy  faith  hath  made  thee  whole."  Thou  hast  touchd  the 
garment  of  that  spirit,  wise,  peaceful.  Christian ;  and  hast 
been  heald  of  thy  plague.  The  fountain  of  thy  blood  has 
been  stayd.  And  in  the  very  depth  of  that  midnight  dark- 
nes,  which  lately  shrouded  our  land ;  when  fear  came  upon 
us,  and  trembling;  when  a  spirit  passd  before  our  faces,  but 
we  discernd  not  the  form  thereof;  who  shall  deny,  rather, 
who  can  doubt,  that  the  efectual  fervent  prayer  of  many  a 
private  Christian,  thro'  all  our  borders,  ascended  to  heaven 
for  the  peace  of  brothers? 

"  His  prayer,  his  praise,  his  life  to  vice  unknown, 
In  sweet  memorial,  rose  before  the  throne  ; 
These  charms,  success  in  that  bright  region  find, 
And  called  an  Angel  down  to  calm  our  mind." 

Parnell's  Hermit,  v.  180. 

And  who,  with  the  past  examples  of  American  history, 
and  the  testimony  of  Washington  and  Franklin,  can  doubt, 
that  Providence,  by  a  special  interposition  sav'd  us  then 
from  ourselvs?  Who  shall  say,  that  the  prayer  ofFerd  up 
in  that  very  Convention,  whose  unchristian,  whose  unrepub- 
lican  spirit  (as  we  believd  it  to  be)  struck  us  with  grief,  and 
amazement,  and  almost  with  despair,  was  not  instrumental 

*  Thomas  Jefferson  and  John  Adams  died  July  4,  1826,  and 
James  Monroe,  July  4,  1831. 


287 

in  fulfilling  that  remarkable  declaration  of  the  sacred  writers, 
quoted  by  Franklin,  "  surely  the  wrath  of  man  shall  praise 
thee,  the  remainder  of  wrath  shalt  thou  restrain  7" — Whilst 
we  lay,  as  it  were,  helples  and  despairing,  and  seemd  to 
wait  for  some  angel  to  trouble  the  waters  for  our  healing,  the 
prayer  for  light  and  help,  ascended  from  the  midst  of  that 
very  assembly.  And  it  was  heard.  The  blessing  of  heaven 
descended,  silent  and  unseen,  as  the  dew  of  evning.  The 
spirit  of  American  Institutions  prevaild,  and  we  were  sav'd. 
O  my  countrymen !  let  us  never  doubt  the  sincerity  of  that 
prayer!  Let  us  accord  with  willing  hearts,  the  meed  of 
respect  and  gratitude,  to  those  who  propos'd,  to  those  who 
offerd  up,  to  those  who  joind  in  that  prayer.  Let  us  believ, 
that  in  the  dark  hour  of  temptation  and  trial ;  of  temptation 
to  dishonor  their  parent,  to  smite  their  country ;  of  trial  to 
the  strength  and  sincerity  of  their  love  and  duty,  many  a 
spirit  that  would  hav  yielded  at  her  bidding,  life,  liberty, 
property ;  yea,  the  aged  parents  that  bore  him,  and  the  wife 
and  the  children  of  his  fire-side,  struggled  in  an  agony  of  in- 
tercession, intense  and  solemn  as  death-bed  supplications. 
One  of  the  most  eminent  of  that  Convention,  in  talents,  energy 
and  influence,  one  of  the  boldest  and  most  zealous  of  the  men, 
whom  we  beheld,  with  mingled  aw,  astonishment  and  in- 
dignation, has  yielded  his  spirit,  within  a  few  days,  to  his 
Father  and  our  Father,  to  his  God  and  our  God. — Let  us 
believ,  for  his  sake  and  our  sakes,  that  out  of  the  depth  of 
his  soul,  as  he  stood  on  the  verge  of  the  gulf  of  Civil  War  and 
Revolution,  went  forth  an  impassiond  prayer  for  light  and 
counsel.  Peace  be  to  his  ashes !  Let  his  talents  and  elo- 
quence, as  a  writer  and  speaker,  be  rememberd,  for  they 
honord  Carolina.  Let  his  principles,  so  deeply  condemnd 
by  us,  be  recolected,  as  warning  beacons ;  but  without  scorn, 
ridicule  or  bitternes.  Let  the  errors  of  his  political  life, 
(for  such  we  must  esteem  them,)  be  forgiven,  as  we  trust  to 


288 

be  ourselvs  forgiven ;  and  be  forgotten,  for  the  sake  of  our 
common  country. 

Will  you  my  fellow-citizens,  yield  me  your  attention  yet 
a  little  while  longer,  that  I  may  ilustrate  still  farther,  the 
spirit  of  American  Institutions  ?  Patrick  Henry  said,  in  the 
Convention  of  Virginia,  "  Guard  with  jealous  attention,  the 
public  liberty.  Suspect  evry  one  who  approaches  that 
Jewel.  Unfortunately,  nothing  will  preserv  it  but  down- 
right force.  Whenever  you  giv  up  that  force,  you  ar 
inevitably  ruind."#  And  the  question  has  been  askd,  with 
triumphant  confidence,  as  tho'  but  one  reply  could  be  given, 
"  What  hav  the  people  ever  gaind  but  by  Revolution?"  and 
we  hav  been  told,  "  Revolution  has  no  terrors  for  me."  The 
sentiments  of  Patrick  Henry,  belongd  to  the  jealousy  and 
anxiety,  the  confusion,  alarms  and  doubts,  which  naturaly 
sprang  up  with,  and  surviv'd  the  revolution.  They  ar  un- 
worthy of  our  age:  they  ar  a  reproach  to  the  spirit  of 
American  Institutions :  they  ar  foreigners  in  our  Union  and 
with  our  Constitution.  To  the  question,  "  what  hav  the 
people  ever  gaind  but  by  Revolution,"  I  answer,  boldly,  if  by 
revolution  be  understood  the  law  of  the  Sword,  liberty 

HAS  LOST    FAR  MORE  THAN    SHE    EVER    GAIND    BY  IT.       The 

Sword  was  the  destroyer  of  the  Lycian  Confederacy  and 
the  Achaean  League.  The  Sword,  alternately  enslav'd  and 
disenthrald  Thebes  and  Athens,  Sparta,  Syracuse  and 
Corinth.  The  Sword  of  the  Macedonian  cut  his  way  to  the 
Council  of  Amphictyon,  thro'  the  ranks  of  freemen,  and  ex- 
pelld  Lacedaemon  to  make  room  for  Philip.  The  Sword  of 
Rome,  conquerd  evry  other  free  state,  and  finishd  the  mur- 
der of  liberty  in  the  ancient  world,  by  destroying  herself. 
What  but  the  Sword,  in  modern  times,  anihilated  the  Repub- 
lics of  Italy,  the  Hanseatic  towns,  and  the  primitiv  indepen- 

*  1  Eloq.  U.  S.  p.  78. . 


289 

dence  of  Ireland,  Wales  and  Scotland  ?  What  but  the  Sword 
partitiond  Poland,  asasinated  the  rising  liberty  of  Spain, 
banishd  the  Hugonots  from  France,  and  made  Cromwell, 
the  master,  not  the  servant  of  the  People?  What  but  the 
Sword  of  Republican  France,  cut  down  the  libertys  of  the 
Batavian  Confederacy,  and  trac'd  in  letters  of  blood  on  the 
eternal  snows  of  Switzerland,  "  the  Law  of  the  Sword,  is  the 
Law  of  violence  to  the  peaceful,  of  slavery  to  the  free  ?" 
And  what  but  the  Sword,  of  the  same  Republican  France, 
destroy'd  the  independence  of  half  of  Europe,  delug'd  the 
Continent  with  tears,  devourd  its  milions  upon  milions,  and 
clos'd  the  long  catalogue  of  guilt,  by  founding  and  defending 
to  the  last,  the  most  powerful,  selfish  and  insatiable  of  Mili- 
tary Despotisms. 

The  Sword,  indeed,  deliverd  Greece  from  the  Persian  In- 
vaders, and  expelld  the  proud  Tarquin.  The  Sword  eman- 
cipated Switzerland  and  Holland  ;  restor'd  the  Bruce  to  his 
throne,  and  brought  Charles  to  the  scaffold.  The  Sword 
hewd  in  pieces  the  giant  power  of  the  oppressor  Napoleon ; 
cut  asunder  the  chains,  that  bound  the  Spanish  Colonys  to 
the  Mother  Country :  and  redeemd  the  pledge  of  the  Congress 
of  '76,  when  they  plighted  to  each  other,  "  their  lives,  their 
fortunes  and  their  sacred  honor."  And  yet,  what  would 
the  redemption  of  that  pledge  have  availd,  towards  the  estab- 
lishment of  our  present  government,  if  the  spirit  of  American 
Institutions,  had  not  been  both  the  birthright  and  the  birth- 
blessing  of  the  Colonys]  Religion,  Education  and  Popular 
Institutions,  a  deep  sens  of  the  valu  of  civil  and  political 
liberty,  of  the  rights  of  conscience,  of  the  Independence  of 
the  People,  of  the  responsibility  of  Rulers,  and  of  the  tru  na- 
ture of  the  Social  Compact,  were  the  mother-milk  of  our  co- 
lonial infancy.  The  Indians,  the  French  and  the  Spaniards, 
even  England  herself,  warrd  in  vain  against  a  People,  born 
and  bred  in  the  houshold,  at  the  domestic  altar  of  Liberty 
Bb 


290 

herself.  They  were  freemen,  because  they  were  worthy  to 
be  such,  before  the  Sword  of  Revolution  had  cut  the  Gordian 
knot  of  colonial  dependence.  They  never  had  been  slaves, 
for  they  were  born  free.  The  Sword  was  a  herald  to  pro- 
claim their  freedom,  but  neither  created  nor  preservd  it. 
A  century  and  a  half,  had  already  beheld  them  free  in  in- 
fancy, free  in  youth,  free  in  early  manhood.  Theirs  was 
already  the  spirit  of  American  Institutions:  the  spirit  of 
Christian  freedom,  of  a  temperate,  regulated  freedom,  of  a 
rational  civil  obedience.  For  such  a  People,  the  Sword,  the 
law  of  violence,  did  and  could  do  nothing,  but  sever  the 
bonds  which  bound  her  colonial  wards  to  their  unnatural 
guardian.  They  redeemd  their  pledge  sword  in  hand;  but 
the  Sword  left  them,  as  it  found  them  unchanged  in 
character;  Freemen,  in  thought,  and  in  deed,  instinct 

WITH  THE  IMMORTAL  SPIRIT  OF  AMERICAN  INSTITUTIONS. 

But  what  has  the  Sword  ever  done,  what  can  the  Sword 
ever  do,  to  change  the  slave  into  a  freeman  ?  The  fit  sub- 
ject of  Despotism  or  Monarchy,  baptiz'd  in  blood,  no  more 
becomes  a  Freeman,  than  the  Pharisee,  plung'd  in  the  waves 
of  Jordan,  came  forth  a  Christian.  The  very  materials  of 
the  Warrior's  Sword,  ar  the  materials  of  the  Tyrant's  chains, 
of  the  Atheist's  Guillotine.  The  Sword  may  rescu  the  slave 
from  the  dungeon,  and  cut  asunder  the  "iron  that  enterd 
into  his  soul."  The  Sword  may  deliver  him  from  the  ty- 
ranical  misrule  of  another ;  but,  can  it  confer  on  him  the  ca- 
pacity for  self-government? — And  what  is  Liberty  without 
this? — What  is  it,  but  the  fickle  tempestuous  democracy  of 
Athens:  the  selfish  and  all-destructiv  ambition  of  Rome;  the 
very  whirlwind  and  hurricane  of  the  French  Revolution? 
The  Sword  cannot  giv  to  the  slave  the  virtues,  that  public 
and  private  life  demand  of  the  Freeman.  It  cannot  kindle 
the  sens  of  duty,  and  the  spirit  of  usefulnes ;  it  cannot  clothe 
him  with  the  calm  and  enlarg'd  wisdom,  the  moral  courage, 


291 

the  self-denial  and  self-command,  without  which,  Liberty  is  a 
ferocious  and  remorsles  demon,  "  a  reproach  and  a  by-word 
down  to  future  ages."  The  Sword  cannot  elevate  and  ex- 
pand the  soul  of  the  slave,  and  fill  it  with  high  and  holy 
tho'ts  of  Country  and  Brethren,  of  Union  and  Constitution, 
of  the  majesty  of  the  Laws,  and  the  obligations  of  civil  obe- 
dience, of  the  authority  of  public  sentiment  and  the  supre- 
macy of  its  moral  power.  What  but  the  spirit  of  American 
Institutions  can  work  the  change?  What  but  this  is  able  to 
cast  out  the  unclean  spirit,  which  fits  the  Slave  to  be  the 
Maniac  of  a  Reign  of  Terror,  or  the  base  satelite  of  Imperial 
Ambition  ?  What — but  Education,  Religion,  Peace — is  endu'd 
with  power  to  make  liberty  a  blessing,  and  not  a  curs? 
The  spirit  of  American  Institutions  has  rul'd  our  Country  for 
two  centurys,  and,  what  has  it  not  done  for  us?  The  Sword 
has  had  the  dominion  of  the  Earth,  for  nearly  six  thousand 
years;  and,  what  has  it  accomplishd  for  the  human  race? 
Milions  upon  milions  giv  the  answer  from  the  world  of 
spirits.  The  Sword  can  never  change  the  Slave  into  a  Free- 
man ;  for  it  cannot  work  miracles.  It  cannot  breathe  into 
him,  the  breath  of  life ;  and  Liberty  is  Life. 


EXTRACT 

From   an  Address  deliverd  before  the  Charleston  Tem- 
perance Society. 

One  more  ilust ration,  and  I  hav  finishd.  I  hav  said,  that 
Christianity  came  to  restore  the  simplicity  of  primitiv  times, 
and  to  establish  the  supremacy  of  principle  over  precedent. 
— Such  was  the  glorious  object  of  its  Founder.  But  who, 
that  contemplates  the  original  character  of  the  system,  and 
realizes  the  beauty,  simplicity  and  purity  of  its  doctrins, 
rites  and  morals,  can  fail  to  be  struck  with  amazement,  in 
perusing  the  history  of  the  Christian  Church  ?  The  wild- 
nes  and  extravagance  of  the  Oriental  Schools  :  the  subtle 
metaphysics  and  sophistical  logic  of  the  Western  philosophy, 
deformd  and  degraded  the  grandeur,  simplicity  and  harmony 
of  Christian  doctrins.  The  gorgeous  rites,  the  complicated 
ceremonial,  and  the  endles  varietys  in  the  temple  service  of 
the  Jewish  and  heathen  priesthood,  succeeded  to  the  plain 
and  artles  worship  of  the  primitiv  church.  And,  instead  of 
the  Morals  of  the  Gospel,  so  pure,  so  practical,  so  lovely, 
were  substituted  experimentaly,  a  code  of  Morals,  that  dis- 
honord  the  Gospel,  and  theoreticaly,  the  metaphysics  and 
casuistry  of  the  schoolmen.  What  a  vast  revolution  had 
thus  been  wrought  in  the  Christianity  of  the  Apostolic  Age  ! 
And  what  a  mightyer  revolution  still  remains  to  be  acom- 
plishd,  before  the  Christianity  even  of  our  day,  shall  be  car- 
ry'd  back  to  the  standard  of  the  primitiv  age  !  And  yet,  if 
we  fix  our  eys  intensly  on  the  simplicity  of  the  Gospel,  and 


294 

then  transfer  them  to  the  dark  ages,  or  even  to  the  compara- 
tivly  luminous  aera  of  Julius  and  Leo,  what  a  contrast  is 
there! — Again,  if  we  realize  the  simplicity  and  grandeur  of 
primitiv  Christianity,  and  then  turn  to  the  Christian  Church, 
as  it  now  is,  even  after  all  the  advantages  of  the  Protestant 
Reformation,  how  far  as  a  whole,  does  it  seem  to  be  removM 
in  doctrin,  disciplin  and  worship,  from  the  simplicity  and 
purity,  the  grandeur,  harmony  and  beauty  of  the  Gospel  ! 
Who  can  believ,  that  the  Christian  communitys  of  our  day, 
ar  to  be  reproduced  in  the  Christian  communitys  even  of  the 
next  century?  Who  believs,  that  war  and  dueling;  the 
gambling  hous,  lotterys,  and  the  brothel ;  the  licentiousnes 
of  masquerades  theaters  and  Operas ;  the  frauds  of  diploma- 
cy, and  the  corruption  of  elections ;  the  blasphemy  of  the 
profane,  and  that  byword,  Custom-hous  Oaths;  the  un- 
christian morality,  which  justifys  the  distilery  and  the  li- 
cens'd  trafic  in  ardent  spirits ;  the  banishment  of  the  Bible 
from  the  education  of  Children:  and  the  dedication  of  half 
their  time  to  Pagan  authors?  Who  believs  that  these  can 
survive  another  century,  at  least  in  our  country  ?  I  at  least 
believ,  with  a  strong  faith,  with  a  fervid  hope,  and  rejoice  in 
the  belief,  that  they  will  not,  that  they  cannot  survive.  Our 
country  has  already  set  a  noble  example  in  her  institutions, 
for  the  admiration  and  imitation  of  the  world.  She  has  vin- 
dicated, establishd  and  ilustrated  the  great  rule  of  Christian 
Morals:  Principle  is  supreme,  immortal,  unchangable — - 
Precedent  is  mutable,  subordinate,  perishable.  She  has  ex- 
amind  and  rejected  the  political  systems  of  ancient  and  mo- 
dern Europe.  She  has  dissolvd  forever  the  unnatural  alli- 
ance between  Church  and  State.  She  has  reformd,  by  the 
standard  of  justice  and  common  sens,  the  antiquated  and 
absurd  regulations  of  feudal  jurisprudence.  She  has  intro- 
duc'd  simplicity,  economy,  responsibility  into  the  adminis- 
tration of  public  affairs.  She  has  consecrated  the  trial  by 
Bb2 


294 

Jury,  the  freedom  of  the  Press,  and  liberty  of  conscience. 
She  has  ordaind,  both  in  theory  and  practice,  that  rulers  ar 
but  the  servants  of  the  People.  She  has  dedicated  the  Re- 
presentativ  system,  as  the  best  safeguard  of  the  public  good. 
She  has  plac'd  the  supreme  power  in  the  hands  of  the  Peo- 
ple :  and  has  given  them  the  light  and  security  of  a  written 
Constitution.  And  what  ar  all  these  achievments  but  the 
triumph  of  reason,  common  sens,  truth,  over  the  prejudices 
and  superstitions,  the  opinions  and  practices  of  milions,  for 
more  than  twenty  centurys  1  What  ar  they  but  the  victory 
of  Principle,  the  subjugation  of  Precedent  1  for  the  scepter  of 
custom  is  broken,  the  charm  of  his  despotic  authority  is  for- 
ever dissolvd.  And  what  is  the  Temperance  Reform,  but  a 
glorious  manifestation  of  the  same  great  rule  of  Christian 
Morals,  in  accordance  with  the  simplicity  and  purity  of  the 
Gospel  \  It  has  given  a  memorable  ilustration  of  the  dignity 
of  virtu,  the  eloquence  of  Truth,  and  the  supreme  Authority 
of  Principle,  It  has  gone  forth,  not  in  the  pride  of  human 
opinion,  nor  yet  with  the  sanctions  of  human  power;  but  in 
the  name  of  humanity  and  wisdom,  in  the  spirit  of  Christian 
humility,  justice  and  love,  It  has  gone  forth,  resolvd  to 
conquer ;  for  it  believs  with  inflexible  faith,  in  the  all-sub- 
duing power  of  Truth.  It  has  gone  forth,  and  it  shall  con- 
quer, for  the  Temperance  Reformation  is  unchangably, 
essentialy,  permanently  the  cause  of  Christian  Morals, 


EXTRACT 

From  an  Address  on  the  Power  and  Valu  of  the  Sunday- 
school  System,  March,  1834. 

It  is  impossible  not  to  perceiv  how  deeply,  extensivly,  and 
durably  such  a  combination  of  causes  must  afect  the  entire 
character  of  education  and  literature.  If  it  were  not  for  the 
magic  influence  of  habit,  and  the  venerable  authority  of 
ancient  prejudices,  we  should  look  with  grief  and  astonish- 
ment on  the  existing  system  of  education.  Acknowleging 
the  Bible,  as  the  fountain  of  light  and  truth,  as  the  guardian 
angel  of  this  world,  and  the  garantee  of  eternal  life ;  as  con- 
taining the  most  venerable  and  authentic  history ;  the  purest 
and  loftiest  morals ;  eloquence  the  most  dignify'd,  command- 
ing and  natural ;  poetry  the  most  sublime,  pathetic  and 
beautiful ;  how  should  we  mourn  over  the  blindnes  or  in- 
fatuation, the  error  of  judgment,  or  the  perverted  taste,  which 
could  banish  such  a  book  from  the  dayly  education  of  Chris- 
tian children?  Would  it  not  seem  to  us  little  less  than  in- 
gratitude to  the  Author  of  a  gift  so  precious,  to  see  it  rejected, 
and  the  Pagan  historian,  moralist,  orator  and  poet,  eulogis'd 
as  of  unrivald  excelence,  and  adopted  as  dayly  companions 
to  fashion  the  minds  and  hearts  of  Christian  youths.  If  we 
could  free  ourseivs  from  the  despotic  authority  of  great 
names,  and  the  tyrany  of  long  establishd  customs,  with  what 
sentiments  should  we  look  on  the  astonishing  fact,  that 
while  the  Christian  clergy  and  professing  Christians  acknow- 
lege  the  heroic  virtues  of  classic  antiquity  to  be  not 
only  irreconcilable  with,  but  absolutely  hostil  to  the  meek 


296 

AND  HUMBLE  VIRTUES  OF  THE  GOSPEL,  they  should  UTERLY 
EXCLUDE    THESE,     and    should    EXTENSIVLY     INCORPORATE 

those  into  their  systems  of  education. 

Let  us  banish  for  a  moment  the  idea  that  the  Bible  is  a 
divine  book.  Let  us  regard  it  as  a  human  composition. 
Let  us  take  the  testimony  of  the  statesman,  philosopher  and 
scholar  to  its  extraordinary  merits ;  and  should  we  not  ex- 
pect as  a  matter  of  cours,  to  find  it  interwoven  universaly, 
inseparably,  with  the  texture  of  evry  system  of  education  ? 
Ar  not  the  Pentateuch,  Joshua  and  Judges,  Samuel  and 
Kings,  the  Gospels  and  Acts,  superior  in  the  truth  and  valu 
of  the  facts,  in  the  dignity,  gravity  and  interest  of  narrativ, 
to  the  most  celebrated  of  the  classic  historians?  Who  would 
compare  the  laws  of  Lycurgus  and  Solon,  of  Romulus  and 
Numa,  to  the  institutions  of  Moses :  or  the  philosophy  of 
Socrates,  Plato  and  Aristotle,  of  Cicero  and  Epictetus,  of 
Seneca  or  Antoninus,  with  the  moral  code  of  Jesus  of  Naza- 
reth ?  Does  the  eloquence  of  Demosthenes  or  Tully,  does 
the  poetry  of  Homer  or  Virgil,  of  Pindar  or  Horace,  rival 
the  grandeur  and  magnificence,  the  pathos,  energy  and 
beauty  of  Moses -and  Job,  of  David  and  the  Prophets,  of 
Paul  and  the  Apocalypse?  Can  we  doubt,  then,  if  the 
Bible  were  a  human  book,  we  should  find  it  carefuly  and 
efectualy  embody'd  in  evry  scheme  of  instruction  ?  And 
because  it  is  the  book  of  life  and  happines,  of  duty  and  use- 
fulnes,  is  it  therefore  excluded  ?  Yes,  we  behold  the  aston- 
ishing fact,  the  best  and  noblest  of  all  books,  is  proscribed  and 
banishd  from  its  rightful  empire,  the  minds,  consciences  and 
hearts  of  Christian  youth.  What  but  ancient  prejudices  and 
the  slavish  habit  of  not  thinking  for  ourselvs,  could  reconcile 
us  to  such  inconsistency,  to  such  violation  of  duty,  common 
sens,  and  pure  enlightend  taste?  But  we  know  that  the 
children  of  the  Sunday-school,  who  ar  to  be  both  the  people 
and  the  rulers,  the  parents  and  the  teachers  a  quarter  of  a 
century  hence^  will  never  tolerate  such  a  reproach  to  the 


297 

Christian  character  of  their  age.  Brought  up  in  the  school 
of  gospel  truth,  purity  and  love,  they  will  regard  it  as  little 
ess  than  a  denial  of  their  master,  to  banish  the  Bible  from 
the  whole  circle  of  dayly  education.  The  very  reason  why 
Christians  now  exclude  it,  because  it  is  a  divine  book,  will 
be  to  them  the  unanswerable  argument  for  adopting  it. 
Superior  to  the  narrow  minded,  narrow  hearted  prejudices 
and  jealousys  of  sectarian  religion,  they  would  bring  to  the 
question  inflexible  faith  that  such  a  book  could  do  nothing 
but  good.  Theirs  will  be  the  enlarg'd  wisdom,  the  enlight- 
end  benevolence,  which  will  ackowlege  in  spirit  and  in  truth, 
in  thought,  word  and  deed,  that  the  New  Testament  is  the 
only  genuin  moral  constitution  of  society,  and  its  principles 
the  only  safe  and  wise  foundation  of  civil  and  political  in- 
stitutions. In  the  same  spirit,  they  will  acknowlege  that 
the  Bible  contains  the  wisest  and  noblest,  the  most  various 
and  precious  elements  of  all  education  and  all  literature. 
This  will  be  their  theory,  and  correspondent  to  it  will  be 
their  practice.  They  will  believ,  what  all  our  systems  ac- 
tualy  and  uterly  deny,  both  in  theory  and  practice,  that 

THE  SENS  OF  DUTY,  AND  THE  SPIRIT  OF  USEFULNES,  culti- 
vated on  the  Christian  model,  ar  far  more  valuable  than 
science  and  learning :  and  that  the  afections  regulated  by 
the  same  standard,  ar  incomparably  more  precious  than 

DISCIPLIN    OF    MIND    AND    REFINEMENT    OF   TASTE.       Duty, 

usefulnes  and  the  afections  will  be  regarded  by  them,  as  the 
foundation  and  cement  of  all  education.  These  will  be  the 
primary  objects ;  science,  taste  and  learning  the  secondary. 

But  this  influence  of  the  Sunday-school  will  extend  far 
beyond  the  school  and  college.  It  will  diffuse  itself  thro'  the 
whole  circle  of  literature.  The  scholars  of  the  Sunday-school 
ar  to  be  the  critics  and  poets,  the  orators,  historians,  and 
philosophers  of  future  years.  Can  we  doubt  it  ?  when  we 
look  at  the  wonderful  progress  of  the  system,  within  the  last 
ten  years,  in  our  own  country :  and  when  we  see  that  the 


298 

causes  which  hav  carry'd  it  onwards,  with  such  unex- 
ampled velocity  and  power,  ar  as  durable  as  Christianity 
itself.  Shall  not  then  the  character  of  all  literature  undergo 
a  mighty  revolution  1  Must  not  the  whole  department  of  fic- 
tion be  chang'd  in  its  elements  and  structure :  and  be  espe- 
cialy  distinguishd  by  elevated  sentiment  and  pure  morals,  the 
spirit  of  usefulnes  and  refinement  in  taste  and  manners. 
Will  not  the  orator  seek  in  the  Scriptures,  the  best  and 
noblest  motivs  to  influence  the  hearts  of  men :  and  draw 
from  the  inexhaustible  treasurs  of  divine  truth,  a  strain  of 
argument,  a  tone  of  morals,  and  a  style  of  ilustration  and 
sentiment  which  may  be  sought,  but  never  can  be  found  in 
the  classic  page.  Shall  not  the  historian,  regarding  the 
Bible  as  the  only  tru  foundation  for  the  annals  of  mankind, 
resort  to  its  records,  as  a  more  simple  and  dignify'd,  a  more 
impartial,  grave  and  interesting  exhibition  of  human  charac- 
ter in  nations  and  individuals,  than  Greece  or  Rome  has  ever 
produc'd  ?  And  shall  not  the  statesman  and  philosopher  find 
in  the  Scriptures,  the  fountains  of  a  deeper  philosophy  ;  of 
wisdom  more  enlarg'd  and  profound ;  of  a  more  just,  humane 
and  rational  policy;  and  a  view  of  the  moral  and  intelectual 
capacitys  of  man,  of  his  power,  afections  and  destiny  more 
animating  and  consolatory,  than  the  writers  of  classic  anti- 
quity ever  even  imagind  ?  The  manhood  of  the  Sunday- 
school  system  shall  then  behold  a  mighty  revolution  in  evry 
department  of  literature.  Nor  is  it  too  much  to  predict,  that 
none  will  be  found  in  that  day,  to  dishonor  their  talents,  taint 
their  moral  purity,  and  waste  their  time,  in  preserving  the 
trash  and  licentiousnes  of  Swift,  Dryden  and  Sterne ;  or  in 
swelling  out  a  body  of  English  poetry,  with  the  vulgar 
and  indecent  vers  of  Sommerville,  Butler  and  Prior. 
The  Christian  critics  and  editors  of  that  day  will  either 
abandon  the  whole  mass  of  such  writers,  as  irreclaimably 
vile  and  corrupt,  or  they  will  apply  to  them  the  caustic  and 
the  knife,  with  the  skill  and  unsparing  severity  of  the  sur- 


299 

geon,  when  dealing  with  shatterd  limbs,  or  the  malignant 
cancer. 

Let  us  contemplate  the  literary  influence  of  the  Sunday- 
school  system  in  two  other  important  points  of  view.  The 
first  is  that  which  relates  to  the  periodical  press*  I  speak 
not  of  reviews,  and  magazines,  and  other  journals  of  a 
similar  description ;  but  of  our  dayly  and  weekly  newspapers. 
Is  not  the  day  coming,  when  Sunday-school  scholars  shall 
be  the  editors  of  all  our  gazetts?  I  at  least  doubt  it,  as  little 
as  I  doubt  that  the  tide  of  population  will  roll  onward  out  of 
the  Vally  of  the  Mississippi  across  the  Rocky  Mountains  to 
the  Pacific  Ocean.  And  when  the  Sunday-school  pupils  of 
that  day  shall  be  the  owners  and  directors  of  our  dayly  pa- 
pers, do  we  believ  that  they  will  tolerate  the  falshood,  pre- 
varication and  concealment,  the  bitter  and  contemptuous 
spirit,  the  slander,  intolerance  and  ridicule,  which  brand  so 
deeply  and  extensivly  the  character  of  our  political  journals? 
Many  of  them  ar  edited  by  Christians,  all  ar  edited  for  a 
Christian  community :  and  yet  you  might  as  well  look  into 
Shaftesbury,  Bolingbroke  and  Hume  for  Christian  principles, 
as  into  their  pages  for  the  spirit  of  the  Gospel.  There  you 
may  find  the  turbulence  and  licentiousnes  of  the  Athenian 
populace ;  the  ferocity  and  arrogance  of  Roman  democracy ; 
and  the  very  genius  of  Cavalier  and  Puritan,  breathing  out 
threatnings  and  slaughter.  But,  in  the  political  newspapers 
of  our  country,  ar  seldom,  if  ever  displayed  the  spirit  of  love 
and  humility,  of  forbearance  and  forgivnes,  which  breathe  so 
sweetly  thro'  the  pages  of  the  Evangelists. 

The  other  point  of  view,  in  which  I  propose  to  consider 
the  influence  of  the  Sunday-school  system  over  literature, 
relates  to  it  as  reflecting  the  character  of  a  Peaceful  people. 
The  readers  of  a  future  day,  train'd  up  in  the  Sunday-school, 
will  not  be  satisfy'd  with  a  literature  constructed  on  Pagan 
models,  breathing  the  spirit  of  heathen  institutions,  morals 
and  manners :  and  deriving  its  power  over  the  mind  and 


300 

heart,  from  war  and  violence  in  such  a  variety  of  forms. 
They  will  demand  a  literature,  in  accordance  with  the  beauty 
of  holines,  with  the  ornament  of  a  meek  and  quiet  spirit, 
and  with  that  love  to  God  and  love  to  man,  which  ar  the 
very  sunlight  of  the  Gospel.  They  will  demand  a  literature, 
which  shall  breathe  glory  to  God  and  good  will  to  man : 
whose  privilege  it  shall  be  to  honor  God,  whose  duty  it  shall 
be  to  bless  mankind :  in  which  shall  be  displayd  all  the  va- 
riety of  Christian  graces,  ilustrated  and  relievd  by  the  con- 
trast, not  of  vices  and  crimes,  but  of  the  heathen  heroic  vir- 
tues of  war  and  the  warrior.  They  will  demand,  and  enjoy 
in  conformity  with  the  spirit  of  that  age,  what  the  world  has 
never  seen,  a  pure  Christian  literature,  preeminently  the 
literature  of  Peace. 


THE  END 


§9 


* 


DATE  DUE 

H&M&& 

I 

1 

GAYLORD 

PRINTED  IN  U.S.A. 

